A plain introduction to the criticism of the New Testament for the use of Biblical students

CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

ENGLISH COLL,ECTION

THK GIKT OK

JAMES MORGAN HART

PROFESSOK OK ENGUSH

a.wH-qis

DATE DUE

PRINTED (N U.S.A.

3 1924 092 355 118

Cornell University
Library

The original of this bool< is in
the Cornell University Library.

There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.

http://www.archive.org/details/cu31 9240923551 1 8

A PLAIN INTRODUCTION

CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

0;«;fera

HORACE HART, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY

A

PLAIN INTRODUCTION

C fry. %■ iL-cCij h. /L^

TO THE

CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

FOR THE USE OF BIBLICAL STUDENTS

BY THE LATE

FREDERICK HENRY AMBROSE SCRIVENER

M.A., D.C.L., LL.D.

PREBENDARY OF EXETER, VICAR OF HENDON

FOURTH EDITION, EDITED BY

THE REV. EDWARD MILLER, M.A.

FORMERLY FELLOW AND TUTOR OF NEW COLLEGE, OXFORD

VOL. II

£onbon

GEORGE BELL & SONS, York Street, Covent Garden

AND NEW YORK: 66 Fifth Avenue

CAMBRIDGE: Deighton Bell & Co.

1894

e.v.

ft.s^'49ls"

In templo Dei offert unusquisque quod potest: alii aurum, argentum, et lapides pretiosos : alii
byssum et purpuram et coccum offerunt et hyacinthum. Nobiscum bene agitur, si obtulerlmus
pelles et caprarum pilos. Et tamen Apostolus contemtibiliora nostra magis necessaria judicat.

HiERONYMi Prologus Galeaius.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.

PAGK

ANCIENT TEESIONS 1

CHAPTER II.

SYEIAC VEESIONS 6

1. The Peshitto. 2. The Curetonian. 3. The Harkleian or Philox-
enian. 4. The Palestinian or Jerusalem. 5. The Karkaphensian or
Syriac Massorah. Parallel Renderings.

CHAPTER III.

LATIN VEESIONS . . . . . . • . . . .41

1. Old Latin — Old Latin Manuscripts. 2. Vulgate — ^Vulgate Manu-
scripts.

CHAPTER IV.

B&TPTIAN pE COPTIC VEESIONS 91

1. Coptic Versions and Dialects. 2. Bohairio Version — Manuscripts.
3. Sahidic (or Thebaic) Version — Manuscripts. 4. Fayoumic. 5. Middle-
Egyptian or Lower Sahidic. 6. Akhmimic,

CHAPTER V.

THE OTHEE VEESIONS OT' THE NEW TESTAMENT . . . .145

1. Gothic. 2. Armenian. 3. Ethiopic. 4. Georgian. 5. Slavonic.
6. Arabic. 7. Anglo-Saxon. 8. Prankish. 9. Persic.

CHAPTER VI.

QUOTATIONS EEOM THE FATHEES 167

Value of Patristic testimony ; list of Ecclesiastical writers.

CHAPTER VII.

EABLY FEINTED EDITIONS 175

1. Complutensian Polyglott. 2. Erasmus. 3. Aldus. 4. Stephen.
5. Beza. 6. Elzevir.

Vi CONTENTS.

CHAPTEK VII {continued).

CEITICAL EDITIONS ......•■■

1. Stephen. 2. Couroelles. 3. Pell. 4. Mill. 5. G. D. T. M. D.
(Gerhard von Masstricht). 6. Bentley. 7. Mace. 8. Bengel. 9. J. J.
Wetstein. 10. Matthaei —Alter. 11. Birch. 12. Grieabach. 13. Seholz.
14. Lachmann. 15. Tischendorf. 16. Tregelles. 17. Westcott and
Hort. 18. Revisers' text.

PAQE

196

CHAPTER VIII.

INTEENAL EVIDENCE
Seven Canons.

244

CHAPTEK IX.

HISTORY OF THE TEXT ........ 257

Second, third, fourth, and fifth centuries ; theories of Recensions.

CHAPTER X.

RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CEITICISM 274

Nature of comparative criticism ; School of Lachmann unsound ;
Horfs theory examined and condemned ; true principles.

APPENDIX. Illustrative passages 302

CHAPTER XI,

CHARACTER OF THE DIALECT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT . . 312

CHAPTER XII.

APPLICATION OP PRINCIPLES TO SELECT PASSAGES:

First Series, gospels ........ 321

Second Series, acts ........ 368

Third Series. ST. patjl ....... 379

Fourth Series, catholic epistles . . . . .397

Fifth Series, apocalypse 409

appendix a. syriac lectionaeies 413

„ B. additional BOHAIEIC manuscripts . . .414

INDEX I. OP passages treated 417

INDEX II. OF subjects 419

ADDENDA ET COEEIGENDA.

Page 167, 1. 16. I am oonvineed that it is only just measure to a book, which
from a strong prejudice is not known nearly as much amongst Textualists as its
great merit deserves, to draw more attention to ' The Revision Revised ' by the
late Dean Burgon. Those who have really studied it, to whichever school they
belong, know how it teems with suggestion all through its striking pages. The
present book owes a vast debt to him.

P. 248, 11. 8, 9 from bottom, /or Sir Edmund Beckett read Lord Grimthorpe.

Some remains upon sacred Greek MSS. by Dr. Scrivener have been just
published under the name of ' Adversaria Critica Sacra,' Cambridge : Uni-
versity Press. Reference has been made in this edition to some of the proof-
sheets which were sent to the Editor. Vol. I. Appendix A.

INTRODUCTION

TO

THE CRITICISM OF THE TEXT OF
THE NEW TESTAMENT.

CHAPTER I.

ANCIENT VEESIONS.

1. 'PHE facts stated in the preceding volume have led us to
believe that no extant manuscript of the Greek Testament
yet discovered is older than the fourth century, and that those
written as early as the sixth century are both few in number,
and (with one notable exception) contain but incomplete por-
, tions, for the most part very small portions, of the sacred
volume. When to these considerations we add the well-
known circumstance that the most ancient codices vary widely
and perpetually from the commonly received text and from each
other, it becomes desirable for us to obtain, if possible, some
evidence as to the character of those copies of the New Tes-
tament which were used by the primitive Christians in times
anterior to the date of the most venerable now preserved.

Such sources of information, though of a more indirect and

precarious kind than manuscripts of the original can supply,

are open to us in the Versions of Holy Scripture, made at the

remotest period in the history of the Church, for the use of

VOL. II. B

2 ANCIENT VERSIONS.

believers whose native tongue was not Greek. After the com-
position of the writings of the New Testament, it is ^ evident
that the Church was in possession of Sacred Books which were
of the utmost value, both to those who were already members,
and in the conversion of such as had not yet come to the real
knowledge of the Faith. The nearness of Syria to Judea, and
the growth of the Church at Antioch and Damascus in the
earliest days, must have produced a demand for a rendering
into the Syriac languages ; and the bilingual condition of most
of the Eoman Empire must have entailed a constant desire
amongst vast multitudes to read in their own tongue a veri-
fication of the truths taught them. Accordingly translations,
certainly of the New and probably also of the Old Testament,
were executed not later than the second century in the Syriac
and Latin languages, and, so far as their present state enables
us to judge of the documents from which they were rendered,
they represent to us a modification of the inspired text which
existed within a century of the death of the Apostles. Later on,
the influence of Alexandria opened the districts to the south
and gave birth to the Coptic versions. And about the time of
the acceptance of the Christian Keligion by the Empire a further
impetus was given, and the Vulgate and the Gothic and Ethiopic
versions were soon made, followed by others according as the
demand arose.

Lideed, the fact that versions as a class go much further back
than MSS., constitutes one of the chiefest points of their impor-
tance in Textual Criticism ; since the range of the ancient
versions may be roughly estimated as reaching from the second to
the tenth century, whereas the period of extant MSS. did not com-
mence till the fourth century was well advanced, and were con-
tinued into the sixteenth. Their respective ages, too, are actually
known, and do not rest upon probabilities, as in the first kind
of evidence. They are also generally authorized translations,
made either by a body of men, or by one eminent authority
whose work was adopted amongst the people for whose use the
Holy Scriptures had been translated. And they probably repre-
sented, either many MSS., or a small body of accepted MSS.

On the other hand, versions as evidence are not without their
special drawbacks. It may be found as difficult to arrive at
the primitive text of a version, as of the Greek original itself ;

ANCIENT VERSIONS. / 3

whether from variations in the different copies, or from suspi-
cions of subsequent correction. Besides this, some are secondary-
versions, being derived not from the Greek, but from some ver-
sion of the Greek. Again, some are ' sense-translations ^,' rather
than word-renderings, and it is in many cases difficult to infer
their real verdict. Of course, none but an expert, such as
Dr. S. C. Malan, or the Several revisers of the succeeding chapters
of this edition, can pronounce upon the character of the verdict
of a version in question.

It will be seen then that versions by themselves cannot be
taken to establish any' reading, because manuscripts are
necessarily first authorities, and there is no lack of abundance
in such testimony. Yet they confirm, or help to decide, the con-
clusions or the leanings of manuscriptal evidence : and taken in
connexion with other witnesses, they have much independent
force, varying of course according to the character of the version
or versions, and the nature and extent of their agreement. In
this respect they possess great importance.

The experience of recent years has shown that it is mis-
leading to construct classes of versions in regard to their
relative importance. Fuller knowledge casts aside, and often
with contumely, such adventitious helps. Eeaders are there-
fore referred for information upon each version to the chapter
or section which is devoted to it, and are recommended to gather
their apprehensions of the several values of those versions from
the facts recorded therein, and from use of them in the various
passages of Holy Scripture where they are cited. But the
following is a list of the chief versions of the New Testament
which were made before the introduction of printing, and a few
handposts are inserted here and there for elementary guidance
in the study of them : —

I. Peshitto Syriac (cent, ii), called ' the Queen of Ver-
sions ' (Hort, cent. iii).
II. Latin version or versions ^ (ii, or ii-iv). Kemarkable
for age.

• See Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastioa, ii. ' Evidence of Early Versions and
Patristic Quotations, &e.,' by the Eev. LI. J. M. Bebb, M.A., p. an. In this
chapter, which from press reasons has been curtailed, I am glad to refer to
Mr. Bebb's careful and thoughtful essay.

' I cannot help expressing my strong opinion that there were a great many

B a

4 ANCIENT VERSIONS.

III. Bohairic (or Memphitic) (iii? Stem, iv or v), best of the

Egyptian versions.

IV. Sahidic (or Thebaic) (iii ?), second Egyptian version.
V. Middle-Egyptian (iii 1).

VI. Fayoumic (ii or iii?).
VII. Curetonian (iv), corrupt, — (Sort, ii).
VIII. Vulgate (iv), made by Jerome from the various Latin
texts in vogue at the time.
IX. Gothic (iv).
X. Armenian (iv).
XI. Jerusalem (v ?).

XII. Ethiopic (v-vi). A large number of MSS. exist.
Xin. Georgian (v, vi 1).
XIV. Philoxenian (a. d. 508), corrected by Thomas of Harkel,

Harkleian (a.d. 616) ; very literal.
XV. Arabic versions (ix-xvii), made from Greek, Syriac,

Egyptian, &c.
XVI. Anglo-Saxon (x) of the Gospels, made from the

Vulgate.
VII. Frankish (ix).

Two Persic, from the Peshitto (xiii), and from the
Greek (xiv).

The last four, being secondary, are worth but little as critical
helps.

distinct Latin versions, and that they had a great many sources of origin : —
briefly speaking,
(a) Because of the testimony of Augustine and Jerome ;

(h) Because Latin translations from the first must have been wanted
everywhere, and must have been constantly supplied. On the one hand the
bilingualism prevalent in the Roman Empii-e would ensure a large number of
translators : and on the other the want of accurate Greek scholarship would
account for the numerous eiTors found in and propagated by the old Latin
manuscripts. Copies of one translation could not in those days have been
supplied in every place adequately to the want ;

(c) Because of the multitude of synonyms to be found in Old Latin MSS. ;
{d) Because on almost all disputed passages Old Latin evidence can be quoted

on both sides ;
(e) Because the various MSS. differ so thoroughly that each MS. is quoted as
resting upon its own authority, and no one standard has been
reached or is in view, the utmost that has been done in this respect
being to group them.
But see next chapter : this is an undecided question. — Ed.

ANCIENT VERSIONS. 5

It may be added, that from the literary activity of the last ten
years in the closer examination of ancient records, and through
discoveries in Egypt and elsewhere, a great deal has been added
to the knowledge previously existing upon this part of the sub-
ject of this book. Therefore in the succeeding chapters much
alteration has been found necessary both in the way of correc-
tion, because some theories have been exploded under the
increased light of wider information, and by the insertion of
additions from the results of investigation and of study. The
editor has been readily and generously assisted by several accom-
plished scholars who are experts in their respective departments ;
and the names of the various writers who have contributed to
the four succeeding chapters wiU form a sufficient guarantee for
the soundness and completeness of the information therein
supplied.

CHAPTER II.

SYEIAC VERSIONS.

IN the following account of the earlier Syriac versions, the
Editor has received the most valuable help from the Kev.
G. H. Gwilliam, B.D., Fellow of Hertford CoUege, who is editing
the Peshitto Gospels for the University of Oxford. And upon
the Harkleian version, he is indebted for important assistance
to the Kev. H. Deane, late Fellow of St. John's College, whose
labours have been unfortunately stopped by failure in eyesight.

1. The Peshitto.

The Aramaean or Syriac (preserved to this day as their sacred
tongue by several Eastern Churches) is an important branch of
the great Semitic family of languages, and as eai'ly as Jacob's
age existed distinct from the Hebrew (Gen. xxxi. 47). As we
now find it in books, it was spoken in the north of Syria
and in Upper Mesopotamia about Edessa, and survives to this
day in the vernacular of the plateau to the north of Mardin and
Nisibis^. It is a more copious, flexible, and elegant language
than the old Hebrew (which ceased to be vernacular at the
Babylonish captivity) had ever the means of becoming, and is
so intimately akin to the Chaldee as spoken at Babylon, and
throughout Syria, that the latter was popularly known by its
name {2 Kings xviii. 26; Isa. xxxvi. 11 ; Dan. ii. 4)^. As the
Gospel took firm root at Antioch within a few years after the
Lord's Ascension (Acts xi. 19-27 ; xiii. 1, &c.), we might deem it
probable that its tidings soon spread from the Greek capital into
the native interior, even though we utterly rejected the vener-

' Duval, Grammaire Syriaque, p. xi.

^ Dr. Neubauer in Studia Biblioa, vol. i. (Clarendon Press), ' The Dialects of
Palestine in the time of Christ,' distinguishes between (1) Babylonian Aramaic
(2) Galilaeau Aramaic, (3) the purer Aramaic spoken at Jerusalem, and (4)
modernized Hebrew also used at Jerusalem.

PESHITTO. 7

able tradition of Thaddaeus' mission to Abgarus, toparch of
Edessa, as well as the fable of that monarch's intercourse with
Christ while yet on earth (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., i. 13 ; ii. 1). At
aU events we are sure that Christianity flourished in these
regions at a very early period; it is even possible that the
Syriac Scriptures were seen by Hegesippus in the second cen-
tury (Euseb.,Eccl. Hist., iv. 22) ; they were familiarlyHsed and
claimed as his national version by the eminent Ephraem of Edessa
in the fourth. Thus the universal belief of later ages, and the
very nature of the case, seem to render it unquestionable that the
Syrian Church was possessed of a translation, both of the Old and
New Testament, which it used habitjually, and for public worship
exclusively, from the second century of our era downwards : as
early as a.d. 170 6 2vpos is cited byMelito on Gen. xxii. 13 (Mill,
Proleg. § 1239) ^- And the sad history of that distracted Church
can leave no room to doubt what that version was. In the
middle of the fifth century, the third and foui-th general Councils
at Ephesus and Chalcedon proved the immediate occasions of
dividing the Syrian Christians into three, and eventually into
yet more, hostile communions. These grievous divisions have
now subsisted for fourteen hundred years, and though the bitter-
ness of controversy has abated, the estrangement of the rival
Churches is as complete and hopeless as ever ^. Yet the same
translation of Holy Scripture is read alike in the public assemblies
of the Nestorians among the fastnesses of Koordistan, of the
Monophysites who are scattered over the plains of Syria, of the
Christians' of St. Thomas along the coast of Malabar, and of the

' I cannot agree with Dr. Field (Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt, Proleg.
Ixxvii, 1874) that the Peshitto is not the Syriac version here quoted by Melito ;
but, while he admits a, frequent resemblance between it and the renderings
imputed to ' the Syrian,' he certainly produces not a few instances of diversity
between the two. Besides Theodoret, who often opposes 6 SiJpos to 6 E0patos
(Thren. 1. 15 and passim), Field notes the follovring writers as citing the former, —
Didymus, Diodorus, Eusebius of Emesa, Polychronius, ApoUinarius, Chrysostom,
Procopius (ibid. p. Ixvii).

' AU modem accounts of the unorthodox sects of the East confirm Walton's
gracious language two hundred years ago : ' Etsi verb, olim in haereses miserS
prolapsi, se a reliquis Eeolesiae Catholicae membris separarint, undo justo Dei
judicio sub Infidelium jugo oppressi serviunt, qui ipsis dominantur, ex continuis
tamen calamitatibus edocti et sapientiores redditi (est enim Sohola Cmcis Schola
Lucis) tandem eorum misertus Misericordiarum Pater eos ad rectam sanamque
mentem, rejectis antiquis erroribus, reduxit (Walton, Prolegomena, Wrangham,
Tom. ii. p. 500).

8 SYRIAC VERSIONS.

Maronites on the mountain-terraces of Lebanon. Even though
these last acknowledged the supremacy of Kome in the twelfth
century, and certain Nestorians of Chaldaea in the eighteenth,
both societies claimed at the time, and enjoy to this day, the free
use of their Syriac translation of Holy Scripture. Manuscripts
too, obtained from each of these rival communions, have flowed
from time to time into the libraries of the West, yet they all
exhibit a text in every important respect the same; all are
without the Apocalypse and four of the Catholic Epistles, which
latter we know to have been wanting in the Syriac in the sixth
century (Cosmas Indicopleustes apud Montfaucon, ' CoUectio
NovaPatrum et Script. Graec.,' Tom. ii. p. 292), a defect, we may
observe in passing, which alone is no slight proof of the high
antiquity of the version that omits them ; all correspond with
whatever we know from other sources of that translation which,
in contrast with one more recent, was termed ' old ' ()ck9»o) by
Thomas of Harkel a.d. 616, and ' Peshitto ' (Jfct^s) the ' Simple,'
by the great Monophysite doctor, Gregory Bar-Hebraeus [1226-
86]. Literary history can hardly aiford a more powerful case
than has been established for the identity of the version of the
Syriac now called the Peshitto with that used by the Eastern
Church, long before the great schism had its beginning in the
native land of the blessed Gospel.

The first printed edition of this most venerable monument of
the Christian faith was published in quarto at Vienna in the
year 1555 (some copies are re-dated 1562), at the expense of the
Emperor Ferdinand I, on the recommendation and with the
active aid of his Chancellor, Albert Widmanstadt, an accomplished
person, whose travelling name in Italy was John Lucretius. It
was undertaken at the instance of Moses of Mardin, legate from
the Monophysite Patriarch Ignatius to Pope Julius III (1550-
55), who seems to have brought with him a manuscript, the text
whereof was of the Jacobite family, although written at Mosul,
for pubhcation in the West. Widmanstadt contributed a second
manuscript of his own, though it does not appear whether
either or both contained the whole New Testament. This beau-
tiful book, the diflFerent portions of which have separate dedica-
tions, was edited by Widmanstadt, by Moses, and by W. Postell
jointly, ia an elegant type of the modern Syriac character, the
vowel and diacritic points, especially the linea occultans, being

PESHITTO. 9

frequently dropped, with subscriptions and titles indicating the
Jacobite Church Lessons in the older, or Estrangelo, letter. It
omits, as was natural and right, those books which the Peshitto
does not contain : viz. the second Epistle of Peter, the second
and third of John, that of Jude and the Apocalypse, together
with the disputed passage John vii. 53 — viii. 11, and the doubt-
ful, or more than doubtful, clauses in Matt, xxvii. 35 ; Acts viii.
37 ; XV. 34 ; xxviii. 29 ; i John v. 7, 8. It omits Luke xxii. 17,
18, see Chap. XII on the passage. This editio princeps of the
Peshitto New Testament, though now become very scarce (one
half of its thousand copies having been sent into Syria), is held
in high and deserved repute, as its text is apparently based on
manuscript authority alone,

Immanuel Tremellius [1510-80], a converted Jew (the prose-
lyte, first of Cardinal Pole, then of Peter Martyr), and Professor
of Divinity at Heidelberg, published the second edition in folio
in 1569, containing the New Testament in Hebrew type, with
a literal Latin version, accompanied by the Greek text and
Beza's translation of it, having a Chaldee and Syriac grammar
annexed. Tremellius used several manuscripts, especially one
at Heidelberg, and made from them and his own conjecture
many changes, that were not always improvements, in the text ;
besides admitting some grammatical forms which are Chaldee
rather than Syriac. His Latin version has been used as their
basis by later editors, down to the time of Schaaf. Tremellius'
and Beza's Latin versions were reprinted together in London,
without their respective originals, in 1592. Subsequent editions
of the Peshitto New Testament were those of the folio Antwerp
or Eoyal Spanish Polyglott of Plantin (1571-73), in Hebrew and
Syriac type, revised from a copy written about A.D. 1200, which
Postell had brought from the East : two other editions of Plantin
in Hebrew type without points (1574, 8vo ; 1575, 18mo), the
second containing various readings extracted by Francis
Rapheleng from a Cologne manuscript for his own reprints of
1575 and subsequently of 1583 : the smaller Paris edition, also
in unpointed Hebrew letters, 1584, 4to, by Guy Le Fevre de la
Boderie, who prepared the Syriac portion of the Antwerp Poly-
glott in 1571 : that of Elias Hutter, in two folio volumes (Nurem-
berg, 1599-ieOO), in Hebrew characters ; this editor venturing to
supply in Syriac of his own making the single passages wanting

10 SYRIAC VERSIONS.

in the editio princeps of Widmanstadt, and the spurious Epistle
to the Laodiceans. Martin Trost's edition (Anhalt-Cothen, 1621,
4to), in Syriac characters, with vowel-points, a list of various
readings, and a Latin translation, is superior to Hutter's.

The magnificent Paris Polyglott (fol. 1645) is the first which
gives us the Old Testament portion of the Peshitto, though in an
incomplete state. The Maronite Gabriel Sionita, who superin-
tended this part of the Polyglott, made several changes in the
system of vowel punctuation, possibly from analogy rather than
from manuscript authority, but certainly for the better. He
inserted as integral portions of the Peshitto the version of the
four missing Catholic Epistles, which had been published in
1630 by our illustrious oriental scholar, Edward Pococke, from
a manuscript in the Bodleian (Orient. 119) ^ : and another of the
Apocalypse, edited at Leyden in 1627 by Louis De Dieu, from a
manuscript, since examined by Tregelles, in the University
Library there (Scaliger MS. 18), and from one sent him by Arch-
bishop Ussher, which is now in the Library of Trinity College,,
Dublin (B. 5. 16). Of the two, the version of the Catholic
Epistles seems decidedly the older, and both bear much resem-
blance to the later Syriac or Harkleian translation, but neither
have claim to be regarded as portions of the original Peshitto, to
which, however, they have been appended ever since.

Bp. Walton's, or the London Polyglott (fol. 1654-7), affords
us little more than a reprint of Sionita's Syriac text, with Trost's
various readings appended, but interpolates the text yet further
by inserting John vii. 53 — viii. 11. This passage, which is the
'Pericope de adultera,' is found in Archbishop Ussher's copy,
dated a.d. 1627, and made from a Maronite MS. of much esteem
at Kenobin under Mt. Lebanon ; also in Brit. Mus. 14,470, in Cod.
Barsalibaei at New College, Oxford, and in the Paris Nat. Library
xxii, of which the two last copies are Harkleian, and the one in
the British Museum is Peshitto ^. We are left to conjecture as to
the i-eal date and origin of these translations, except that as far

' Dean Payne Smith's Catalogue, pp. 109-112. In the great Cambridge
manuscript (Oo. I. 1, 2) the Epistles of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude follow
I John, and are continued on the same quire, as Mr. Bradshaw reports.

' See an admirable paper by Dr. Gwynn in ' Transactions of the Koyal Irish
Academy,' xxvii. 8, ' On a Syriac MS. belonging to Archbishop Ussher.' This MS.
was procured for Ussher in 1626 by T. Davies, lent to De Dieu, who used it in
1631, and is now ia Triaity College Library, Dublin.

PESHITTO. 1 1

as the Harkleian is concerned, Dr. Gwynn has shown that
according to the Paris and Brit. Mus. MSS. they are claimed
for Paul, a contemporary of Thomas of Harkel.

Giles Gutbier published at Hamburg (8vo, 1664) an edition
containing all the interpolated matter, and i John v. 7, 8 in
addition, from Tremellius' own version, which he inserted in his
margin. Gutbier used two manuscripts, by one of which, belong-
ing to Constantine L'Empereur, he corrected Sionita's system
of punctuation. A glossary, notes, and various readings are
annexed. The Sulzbach edition 12mo, 1684, seems a mere
reprint of Plantin's ; nor does that published in Eome in 1713
for the use of the Maronites, though grounded upon manuscript
authority, appear to have much critical value.

A collation of the various readings in all the preceding
editions, excepting those of 1684 and 1713, is affixed to the
Syriac N. T. of J. Leusden and Ch. Schaaf (4to, Leyden, 1708-9 :
with a new title-page 1717). It extends over one hundred
pages, and, though most of the changes noted are very insigni-
ficant, is tolerably accurate and of considerable value. This
edition contains the Latin version of Tremellius not too
thoroughly revised, and is usually accompanied with an admir-
able 'Lexicon Syriacum Concordantiale ' of the Peshitto New
Testament. Its worth, however, is considerably lessened by
a fancy of Leusden for pointing the vowels according to the
rules of Chaldee rather than of Syriac grammar : after his death,
indeed, and from. Luke xviii. 27 onwards, this grave mistake
was corrected by Schaaf^. Of modern editions the most con-
venient, or certainly the most accessible to English students, are
the N. T. which Professor Lee prepared in 1816 for the British
and Foreign Bible Society with the Eastern Church Lessons noted
in Syriac, and that of Wm. Greenfield [d. 1831], both in Bagster's
Polyglott of 1828, and in a small and separate form ; the latter
editor aims at representing Widmanstadt's text distinct from the
subsequent additions derived from other sources. Lee's edition
was grounded on a collation of three fresh manuscripts, besides
the application of other matter previously available for the

^ Yet, besides his error of judgement in bringing into the Peshitto text such
passages as we have just enumerated, Schaaf follows the Paris and London
Polyglotts when interpolating toi' au^oiiivav Apoc. xxi. 24, although the words
had been omitted by De Dieu (1627) and Gutbier (1664).

12 SYRIAC VERSIONS.

revision of the text ; but the materials on which he founded his
conclusions have never been printed, although their learned
collector once intended to do so, and many years afterwards
consented to lend them to Scrivener for that purpose ; a promise
which his death in 1848 ultimately hindered him from redeem-
ing. An edition of the Gospels printed in 1829 by the British
and Foreign Bible Society for the Nestorian Christians was
based on a single manuscript brought from Mosul by Dr. Wolff.
Besides these, two editions have been published by the American
Bible Society, at Oroomia, Persia, in 1846, and at New York
(a reprint of the former) in 1878 ^.

From the foregoing statement it will plainly appear that no
edition of the Peshitto Syriac has yet been published with that
critical care on the part of editors which its antiquity and
importance so urgently demand. It is therefore a matter of
deep satisfaction that the work commenced by the late Philip
Pusey has been brought near conclusion by the Rev. G. H.
Gwilliam, for the University of Oxford. Mr. Gwilliam has
informed the editor that the Peshitto ' Tetraevangelium ' will be
the first part published, and will exhibit in its apparatus criticus
readings taken from forty manuscripts, some of which have
been collated throughout, others in parts. From the account
given in the third volume of ' Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica,' we
learn that the authorities on which he bases his text in this
elaborate edition are as follows : —

1. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,479 [a. d. 534], the fourteen Epistles of St. Paul,
Hebrews being always included by the Syrians.

2. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,459 [a. d. 530, last letter illegible], SS. Luke
and John. Possibly older than the last.

3. Eome, Vatican [a. d. 548]. A Tetraevangelium, written at Edessa.

4. Florence, Laurentian Library [a.d. 586].

_ 5. Brit. Mus. 14,460 [a.d. 600]. A Nestorian Estrangelo, written
m the district of Naarda, near Bagdad.

6. Brit. Mus. 14,471 [a.d. 615]. Another Nestorian MS. of the
Gospels, written at Nisibis.

-D ''; S?''; Gtuelpherbytanus [a. d. 634]. Written in the convent of
Beth Chela, near Damascus.

8 Brit. Mus. Add. 14,448 [a. d. 699-700]. A Nestorian MS. Whole
of New Testament as received in the Syrian Church.

9. Brit. Mus. Add. 7157 [a. d. 768]. Written at Beth Kuka.

^ Compare the Printed Editions of the Syriac New Testament, Church Quarterly
Review, vol. xxvi, no. lii, 1888, and a Bibliographical Appendix by Prof. Isaac
H. Hall to Dr. Murdock's Translation of the Peshitto.

PESHITTO. 13

10. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,459 [about a.d. 450], SS. Matthew and Mark.

11. Brit. Mus. Add. 17,117 [about A. d. 450].

12. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,470 [v-vi]. Whole of Peshitto New Testa-
ment. The Pericope de Adultera has been added as stated above, p. 10.

13. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,453 [v-vi]. A Tetraevangelium.

14. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,476 [v-vil. Paul.

15. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,480 [v-vij. Paul.

16. Cod. Crawfordianus I [yij. A very handsome Tetraevangelium,
and in excellent preservation.

17. Codd. Dawkinsiani III, XXVII, in the Bodleian Library.

18. Partial collations of many other MSS. in the British Museum.

19. The editions published by the American Bible Society, which
were, at least to some extent, revised on the authority of ancient Nes-
torian copies.

20. The evidence of the Syriac Massorah of both the Nestorian and
the Jacobite (Karkaphensian) recensions.

It is necessary to mention briefly this remarkable wealth of
evidence, probably to be largely increased by future investi-
gations, in which the Peshitto presents no inconsiderable parallel
to the vast amount of authorities on which the Greek Text of
the New Testament depends, because people are apt to underrate
the grand position of the Peshitto version, when comparing it
with the Curetonian Syriac, of which the sole evidence consists
only of two codices, if the newly-discovered one turns out to be
what was anticipated.

It is not easy to determine why the name of Peshitto, ' Simple,'
' Common,' should have been given to the oldest Syriac version of
Scripture, to distinguish it from others that were subsequently
made^. In comparison with the Harkleian it is the very
reverse of a close rendering of the original. Perhaps the title
refers to its common and popular use^. We shall presently
submit to the reader a few extracts from it, contrasted with the
same passages in other Syriac versions ; for the present we can
but assent to the ripe judgement of Michaelis, who, after thirty

1 Tregelles in ' Smith's Dictionary of the Bible ' thinks that the term was
oi-iginally applied to the Syriac version of the Hebrew Old Testament, in order
to discriminate between it and the Greek Hexapla, or the Syro-hexaplar transla-
tion derived from it, with their apparatus of obeli and asterisks. To this view
Dr. Field adds his weighty authority (Origenis Hexapla, Prolog, p. ix, note 1),
adding that for this reason the pure Septuagint version also is called drr\oSv
(i Kings vii. 13 ; xii. 22), to distinguish its rendering from what is given ly ™
.efoTrXS. The epithet which was proper to the Old Testament in course of time
attached itself to the New.

^ IkCAjfcS )]^uaai, versio vulgata, popularis, Thes. Syr. 8319.

14 SYRIAC VERSIONS.

years' study of its contents, declared that he could consult no
translation with so much confidence in cases of difficulty and
doubt K

2. The Curetonian, Syriac.

The volume which contained the greater part of the Curetonian
portions of the Gospels was brought by Archdeacon Tattam in
1842 from the Monastery of St. Mary Deipara in the Nitrian
Desert (p. 140). Eighty leaves and a half were picked out by
Dr. Cureton, then one of the officers in the Manuscript de-
partment of the British Museum, from a mass of other matter
which had been bound up with them by unlearned possessors,
and comprise the Additional MS. 14,4^1* of the Library they
adorn, and two more reached England in 1847. They are in
quarto, with two columns on a page, in a bold hand and the
Estrangelo or old Syriac character, on vellum originally very
white, the single points for stops, some titles, &c. being in red ink ;
there are no marks of Church Lessons by the first hand, which
Cureton (a most competent judge) assigned to the middle of
the fifth century. The fragments contain Matt. i. 1 — viii. 22 ;
X. 32— xxiii. 25 ; Mark xvi. 17-20 ; John i. 1-42 ; iii. 5— vii.
37 ; (but many words in iii. 6 — iv. 6 are illegible) ; xiv. 10-
12; 15-19; 21-23; 26-29; Luke ii. 48— iii. 16; vii. 33— xv. 21 ;
xvii. 23 — xxiv. 44, or 1786 verses, so arranged that St. Mark's
Gospel is here immediately followed by St. John's. Three
more leaves of this version (part, perhaps, of the same MS.) were
found among the Syriac MSS. procured by Dr. Sachau, and
now at Berlin (Royal Libr. Orient, quart. 528). They contain
Luke XV. 22— xvi. 12 ; xvii. 1-23 ; John vii. 37-52 ; viii. 12-19.
They were published by Roediger (Monatsbericht, Berlin Royal
Academy of Sciences, July, 1872), and were privately printed by
the late Professor Wright to range with Cureton's volume.
Within the last year the discovery has been announced of
another Curetonian MS., which was found in the Library of the
Convent on Mount Sinai by Mrs. Lewis. An edition of it is now
in progress, but will not be published soon enough for notice in
this work. The Syriac text of the London MS, was printed in
fine Estrangelo type in 1848, and freely imparted to such scholars

* A full list of editions of all the Syriac versions is given in the Syriac
Grammar of I^estle (tr. Kennedy), Litteratura, pp. 17-30.

CURETONIAN. I5

as miglit need its help ; but it was not till 1858 that the work
was published \ with a very literal translation into rather
bald English, a beautiful and exact facsimile (Luke xv. 11-13 ;
16-19) by Mrs. Cureton, and a Preface (pp. xcv), full of
interesting and indeed startling matter. Dr. Cureton went so
far as to persuade himself that he had discovered in these Syriac
fragments a text of St. Matthew's Gospel that ' to a great extent,
has retained the identical terms and expressions which the
Apostle himself employed ; and that we have here, in our Lord's
discourses, to a great extent the very same words as the Divine
Author of our holy religion Himself uttered in proclaiming the
glad tidings of salvation in the Hebrew dialect. . .' (p. xciii) : that
here in fact we have to a great extent the original of that
Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew of which the canonical Greek
Gospel is but a translation. It is beside our present purpose to
examine in detail the arguments of Dr. Cureton on this head ^,
and it would be the less necessary in any case, since they seem
to have convinced no one save himself : but the place his version
occupies with reference to the Peshitto is a question upon which
there has been and still prevails a conti'oversy which largely
concerns the issue between contending schools of textual
critics ^.

1 ' Bemains of a very ancient recension of the four Gospels in Syriac, hitHerto
tmknown in Europe, discovered, edited, and translated by William Cureton,
D.D, . . . Canon of Westminster, '4to, London, 1858. See also Wright's description
of the MSS. in Catalogue of Syriac MSS. in the British Museum, vol. i. pp. 73-5.

' Less able writers than Dr. Cureton have made out a strong, though not
a convincing case, for the Hebrew origin of St. Matthew's Gospel, and thus far
his argument is plausible enough. To demonstrate that the version he has
discovered is based upon that Hebrew original, at least so far as to be a modifica-
tion of it and not a translation from the Greek, ho has but a single plea that will
bear examination, viz. that out of the many readings of the Hebrew or Nazarene
Gospel with which we are acquainted, his manuscript agrees with it in the one
particular of insei-ting the three kings, oh. i. 8, though even here the number of
fawrteen generations retained in ver. 17 shows them to be an interpolation. Such
cases as Juda, ch. ii. 1 ; Bamtha, ver. 18 ; ? for on or the relative, ch. xiii. 16,
can prove nothing, as they are common to the Curetonian with the Peshitto,
from which version they may very well have been derived.

' The title to St. Matthew is remarkable ; for while (in the subscription) we
read, ' Gospel of Markos,' and ' Gospel of Juchanan ' occurs, as in other Syriac
MSS., to St. Matthew is prefixed the title ' Evangeliom dampharsa Mattai.' The
meaning of the second word is doubtful in this application. The root means
divide, distinguish, separate — cf. Daniel v. 28. Cureton (Pref vi) says (1) that the
great authority Bernstein suggested ' Evangelium per anni circulum dispositum.'
This is inapplicable, because the copy is not set out in Church Lessons, although

l6 SYRIAC VERSIONS.

Any one who shall compare the verses we have cited from
them in parallel columns (pp. 38-40) will readily admit that the
translations have a common origin, whatever that may be ; many
other passages, though not perhaps of equal length, might be named
where the resemblance is closer still ; where for twenty words
together the Peshitto and the Curetonian shall be positively
identical, although the Syriac idiom would admit other words
and another order just as naturally as that actually employed.
Nor will this conclusion be shaken by the not less manifest fact
that throughout many passages the diversity is sq great that no
one, with those places alone before him, would be led to suspect
any connexion between the two versions ; for resemblances in
such a case furnish a positive proof, not to be weakened by the
mere negative presumption supplied by divergencies. Add to
this the consideration that the Greek manuscripts from which
either version was made or corrected (as the case may prove)
were materially different in their character ; the Peshitto for the
most part favouring Cod. A ^ the Curetonian taking part with
Cod. D, or with the Old Latin, or often standing quite alone,
unsupported by any critical authority whatever ; and the reader
is then in possession of the whole case^ from whose perplexities
we have to unravel our decision, which of these two recensions

some are noted by a much later hand in the margins'. (2) Cureton himself,
noticing a defect in the vellum before wfcoo, would read wfc«JO», and render
'The distinct Gospel of Matthew.' This he understood to indicate that the
translation of Matthew had a different origin from the other books, and was ' built
upon the original Aramaic text, which was the work of the Apostle himself.'
But there is nothing to justify the insertion of a ?, which is required to connect
the title with the following name. The title belongs to the whole work,
' Evangeliom dampharsa — Mattai ' [Catalogue Brit. Mus. I.e.] ; the other names
being preceded by ' Evangeliom ' only. (3) ' Dampharsa ' has been rendered
' explained ' [see the review in ' Journal of Sacred Literature,' 1858], viz. from the
text of the Peshitto ; and this, as we shall see presently, agrees with the
character of the Curetonian, for it abounds in deliberate alterations. But (4)
from the quotations and references in the 'Thesaurus Syriacus' (E. Payne Smith),
col. 3304, it seems almost certain that the epithet means ' separated,' as opposed
to 'united in a Harmony.' Such, of course, the Codex Curetonianus is, but
further evidence is required to justify the inference that the Curetonian was the
offspring of Tatian's Harmony, and became the parent of the Peshitto an
opinion in large measure contradicted by the character of the translation. V^

' ' Si nous devons en croire Scrivener, la version syriaque dite Peshitto a'acoorde
bien plus avec lui [Cod. A] qu'avec (B).' (Les Livres Saints, &c., Pau et Vevey
1872, Preface, p. iii.) The fact is notoriously true, and of course rests not on
Scrivener's evidence, but on universal consent.

^

CURETONIAN. I7

best exhibits the text of the Holy Gospels as received from the
second century downwards by the Syrian Church.

We must not dissemble the fact that Cureton's view of the
superior antiquity of the Curetonian to the Peshitto has been
adopted by many eminent scholars. So for example Dr. Hort,
who was obliged to account for the relation of the two by
a baseless supposition of an imaginary recension at Edessa or
Nisibis when the Peshitto was drawn up as a Syrian ' Vulgate '
(The New Testament in Greek, pp. 135-7). So with more
strength pf argument Dr. Nestle in ' Boorl Encyclopedic fiir 9Cy
protestanehe Theologie en,Kirche ^.'

1. No-^ it is obvious to remark, in the first place, that the
Peshitto has the advantage o{ possession, and that too of fourteen
centuries standing. The mere fact that the Syriac manuscripts
of the rival sects, whether modern or as old as the seventh
century, agree with each other in the most important points,
and at least to a large extent with the citations from Ephraem
and Aphraates, as will be shown, seems to bring the Peshitto
text, substantially in the same state as we have it at present, up
to the fourth century of our era. Of this version, again, there
are many codices, of difierent ages and widely diffused ; of the
Curetonian there is indeed one, of the fifth century, so far as the
verdict of a most accomplished judge can determine so delicate
a question : yet surely this is not to be much preferred, in respect
to antiquity, to those ancient copies of the Peshitto which we
have enumerated on pp. 10, 11, and which include a MS. of the
fifth century, several others nearly as ancient, and two which
are dated in the sixth century, the Florentine of A. d. 586, and
the Vatican of A. D. 548. Another ' Curetonian ' MS., lately dis-
covered, is still under examination, and we have, as yet, no ade-
quate account of it. From the Peshitto, as the authorized version
of the Oriental Church, there are many quotations in Syriac books
from the fourth century downwards ; Dr. Cureton, perhaps the
profoundest Syriac scholar of his day in England, failed to allege
any second citation from the Gospels by a native writer which

• The student may also consult :— Evangelienfragmente, P. Baethgen, 1885.
Disputatio de cod. Evangg. Syr. Curetoniano, Hermansen, 1859. Lehir's Etude,
Paris, 1859. Dr. Harman in Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature, Boston,
1885. Zeitsohrift deiMorgenlandische Gesellschaft, 1859, p. 472. Dr. Wildeboer
in De Waarde der Syrische EvangeliSn (Leiden, 1880) gives three pages of the
literature of the question.

VOL. II. C

l8 SYRIAC VERSIONS.

might serve to keep in countenance the statement of Dionysms
Barsalibi, late in the twelfth century, that 'there is found
occasionally a Syriac copy made out of the Hebrew, which ■
inserts the three kings in the genealogy ' (Matt. i. 8) \ With
every wish to give to this respectable old writer, and to others
who bear testimony to the same reading, the consideration that
is fairly their due, we can hardly fail to see that the weight of
evidence enormously preponderates in the opposite scale.

2. It wiU probably be admitted that in external proof Cureton's
theory is not strong, while yet the internal character of the ver-
sion may be deemed by many powerfully to favour his view.
Negligent or licentious renderings (and the Curetonian Syriac
is pretty full of them) cannot but lessen a version's usefulness
as an instrument of criticism, by increasing our difficulty of
reproducing the precise words of the original which the trans-
lator had before him ; but in another point of view these very
faults may still form the main strength of Dr. Cureton's case.
It is, no doubt, a grave suggestionj that the more polished,
accurate, faithful, and grammatical of the two versions — and the
Peshitto richly deserves aU this praise — is more likely to have
been produced by a careful and gradual revision of one much its
inferior in these respects, than the worse to have originated in
the mere corruption of the better (Cureton, Pref. p. Ixxxi).
A priori, we readily confess that probability inclines this way ;
but it is a probability which needs the confirmation of facts, and
by adverse facts may be utterly set aside. Cureton's remark
that ' upon the comparison of several of the oldest copies now in
the British Museum of that very text of the Gospels which has
been generally received as the Peshitto, the more ancient the
manuscripts be, the more nearly do they correspond with the
text of these Syriac fragments (Pref p. Ixxiii), is confirmed by
other, and subsequent, labourers in the same field. The received
text of the Peshitto was printed from MSS. of a late type. It
was the opinion of P. E. Pusey (whose name has already been
mentioned in these pages) that a revision of the Peshitto text
was made in the eighth century. The oldest Syriac Massoretic
MS. which we possess is dated A. GE. 1210 = A. D. 899^, but
a copy of the Gospels (Add. 14,448), the date of which appears to

1 Cureton, Preface, pp. xi, xciii. ' Brit. Mus. Add. 12,138— see p. 86.

CURETONIAN, I9

be A. H. 80=A.D. 699-700, contains a text which approximates
to the type of the printed Peshitto, but exhibits marginal notes
in a later hand, referring, however, chiefly to pronunciation and
accentuation. There is no evidence that any formal revision took
place; but it would appear certain that as questions of orthography,
of grammar, and of pronunciation were fixed by the decisions of
the Massoretes and grammarians, the faults (as they were deemed)
of the older readings were emended by scribes. Hence it is, that if
we open a codex of the Peshitto Gospels of about the date of the
Codex Ciiretonianus, we find many resemblances of the kind
indicated by Cureton, between the fifth century Peshitto text
and the Curetonian text, because both belong to an early, and
perhaps less accurate era of transcription ^. But the resemblances
only extend to matters of grammar and spelling. In more
important readings, the fifth century form of the Peshitto does
not approximate to the Curetonian text. This was clearly seen
by Pusey, as a result of the collation of a large number of
Peshitto MSS. He found that the text of the oldest of them was.
substantially the same as that which is printed in the Polyglotts.
The grammar may have been improved, but the translation was
not revised. This argument has been elaborated in two volumes
of the Oxford 'Studia BibHca,' in part by the use of Philip
Pusey's materials, in part by independent researches. In vol. i,
paper viii, ' A Syriac Biblical MS. of the fifth century/ the read-
ings which appear to be peculiar to that MS. (about seventy in
number, for it only contains SS. Matthew and Mark) are set out^.
Of these twenty-two can be compared with the Curetonian ; and
it is found that only three approximate more nearly than the
printed Peshitto to the text which, it is contended, is older than
the Peshitto. Further on ^ a stronger argument is adduced ; for
it is shown that in eleven passages, where the fifth century codex
has a different reading from the printed Peshitto, the Curetonian,
instead of agreeing with the ancient text (as ex hypothesi it
ought) approximates to the printed Peshitto, and sometimes
agrees with it. In vol. ii, paper iii, 'The materials for the
criticism of the Peshitto New Testament,' other evidence is
adduced in support of the same conclusions. St. Matt. v. 31-48

' So Eoediger in Z. M. D. G., b. 16, p. 550, instances ^1**^ 1 ; but it proves nothing,
for the form occurs also in old Peshitto MSS.
' Pages 164-5. ' Pages 171-2,

c a

i20 SYRIAC VERSIONS.

is given, with varr. lecU. derived from twenty distinct authori-
ties, so as to place before the reader the Peshitto in its best and
most ancient form. The same passage is set out in the^ Cure-
tonian form. The various readings in the Peshitto in the
eighteen verses amount to at least thirty-one ; but the majority
are the merest minutiae of spelling and pronunciation. Only one
deserves serious attention ; and even that, more for accuracy than
in relation to the sense of the context ; so little has the Syriac
New Testament been altered, or corrupted, in the course of ages
of transcription. Again, when comparison is made with the
Curetonian, whUe twenty-eight variations from the best form of
the Peshitto occur in the above passage, only four find any
support in an old Peshitto MS., and but one of the four is of any
interest. In addition to these there is one place where the
Curetonian agrees with the oldest Peshitto MSS., against the
printed Peshittd text. It is plain then that, as far as the
enquiry has yet been pursued, the peculiar readings of the
Curetonian cannot be traced backwards through the form of
text in the oldest Peshitto MSS. If such a revision of the
Peshitto, as Dr. Hort's theory postulates, ever took place, it
must have been made at a very remote period in the history
of Syriac Christian literature ; and the new text must have been
substituted for the old by measures so drastic that the old (as far
as we know) survives only in one Nitrian and (as we are told) in
one Sinaitic MS. But this is not only improbable in itself,
but is contrary to the analogy supplied by the Latin versions.

Those -who contend for the superior antiquity of the Cure-
tonian rely in great part on the character of the quotations in
the two great Syriac writers, Aphraates and Mar-Ephraem, who
flourished in the century preceding the era in which our oldest
Peshitto MSS. were transcribed^. Both writers abound in
quotations from the New Testament, but many of them are very
free, or mere adaptations. A large number in St. Ephraem are
certainly from the Peshitto. Wright, in his edition of Aphraates,
was inclined to attribute that writer's quotations to the same
source. This has been traversed by others, who contend that
the quotations in Aphraates more nearly resemble the Cure-
tonian, or the text of Tatian's Diatessaron, as far as we know it.

* Some of the Homilies of Aphraates were composed between 337 and 846.
Ephraem died a.d. 373. Bickell, Conspectus, p. 18.

CURETONIAN. 21

The question of the source of St. Ephraem's quotations has been
fully discussed in ' Studia Biblica/ iii, paper iv, by Rev. F. H.
Woods, who has also taken some notice of those in Aphraates.
Mr. Woods holds, as do others (though, as we think, on insuffi-
cient evidence) that the text of the Peshitto was not fully settled
in the days of Aphraates and Ephraem. His conclusion is that
it is quite clear that Ephraem, in the main, used the Peshitto
text (op. cit., p. 107), but as regards Aphraates, he holds that
the quotations approximate more closely to the Curetonian.
Yet Dr. Zahn, and many others, think that Aphraates used the
Diatessaron. The statement of these differences of opinion is
enough in itself to show that the source of quotations in these
ancient Syriac books is not always easy to determine. Hence it
follows that arguments based on the writings of Aphraates and
Ephraem are precarious. Moreover, a variation from the Peshitto
does not necessarily indicate the employment of another version.
The variation might be derived from a Greek text; for there
was constant intercourse between Greek and Syrian Christians,
and many of the latter were well acquainted with Greek.

While we seek in vain amongst the readings of MSS., and the
writings of Syriac authors, for any satisfactory explanation of
the origin of the Curetonian, the work itself may perhaps reveal
something of its nature, if not of its history. We have already
seen ^ that in the opinion of certain textual critics the history
of the Latin Vulgate must have its counterpart in the history of
the Bible of Edessa. The origin of Jerome's translation is well
known. It is supposed that the Peshitto grew in like manner
out of an earlier translation. It is contended that the Ur-
Peshitto is represented to us by the text of the Curetonian ; and
the two texts have been compared in order to establish this
relation. In so doing, no sufficient account has been taken of
the phenomena presented by the differences between the Peshitto
and the Curetonian. When it is argued that in some of those
differences the Peshitto text bears marks of emendation, of the
improving touch of a later hand, we answer ^ that in others
there are as evident marks in the Curetonian of alteration and

' Page 14.

" In the following paragraphs we quote from a MS. exhibiting the results of
investigations made by the Eev. Dr. Waller, Principal of St. John's Hall,
Highbury, who has most generously permitted us to make use of his labours.

22 SYRIAC VERSIONS.

corruption. Indeed, to so large an extent do these prevail, thai
there are good grounds for the suspicion which has been enter-
tained that the Curetonian (at least as exhibited by the editor
from his MS.) is itself the later version. In order to give
effect to this argument, it would be necessary to show the entire
extant Curetonian text, side by side with the corresponding
portions of the Peshitto ; otherwise it is scarcely possible to
realize (i) how manifestly the Curetonian is an attempt to
improve upon the Peshitto text ; and (ii) how frequently (as
a later composition) it demands an acquaintance with the
Gospels on the part of the reader ; and (iii) how it is pervaded
by views of Gospel history, which belong to the Church rather,
than to the sacred text. But even the short passages, which
we have printed as specimens, afford illustrations of the argu-
ment.

1. In St. Matthew xii. 1-4, where the Peshitto exhibits the
Textus Eeceptus, saying that the disciples were hungry, and
began to pluck ears of corn and to eat, the Curetonian improves
upon the Peshitto thus: — 'and the disciples were hungry and
began to pluck ears of corn, and break them in their hands, and
eat ' — introducing words borrowed from St. Luke ^.

2. (a) But in the next verse of the passage, where the words
' on the sabbath ' are absolutely required in order to make the
Pharisees' question intelligible to the first readers of St. Matthew,
the Curetonian must needs draw on the common knowledge of
educated readers by exhibiting the question thus : — ' Why are
thy disciples doing what is not lawful to do 1 ' Of course the
Peshitto is here an 'improvement' on the Curetonian, in reading
the words ' on the Sabbath ' ; but that does not affect our argu-
ment. Would a primitive version, intended for first converts,
have left the reader ignorant what the action objected to might
be ? whether to pluck ears in another man's field, or to rub out
grain on the Sabbath ? But a later editor, who revised the text
for some purpose (it matters not, at present, for what purpose),
might consider the explanatory words superfluous.

(;8) In like manner in ver. 4, ' the bread of the table of the
Lord,' a simple phrase, which every one could understand, has
become in the Curetpnian 'face-bread,' an expression which

' For other like cases see Mat. iv. 11, 21 ; v. 12, 47, in the Curetonian.

CURETONIAN. 23

demands knowledge of the earlier Scriptures on the part of the
reader, and displays the erudition of the editor, as do his
emendations in the list of names in the first chapter of
St. Matthew 1.

3. The other passage which we print (St. Mark xvi. 17-29)
will illustrate our third criticism. The Curetonian is, 'Our
Lord Jesus then, after He had commanded His disciples, was
exalted to heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.' The
simpler Peshitto phrase runs thus, 'Jesus our Lord then, after
He had spoken tvith them, ascended to heaven, and sat on the
right hand of God.' The two slight touches of improvement in
the Curetonian are evident, and belong to that aspect of the
record which finds expression in the Creeds, and in the obedience
of the Church. A similar touch appears in the Curetonian
addition to ver. 17 — them that believe on vie.

Again in Matt. v. 32 we read (with aU authorities), ' Whoso-
ever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornica-
tion,' &c. ; so the Peshitto ; but the Curetonian substitutes
adultery, and thereby sanctions, not the precept delivered by
our Lord, but the interpretation almost universally placed upon
it. Now either the Curetonian has alone preserved the true
text, or the Curetonian is an emended version. The first sup-
position is unreasonable ; the latter is alone suitable to this and
to many other passages.

Not less curious is the addition in ver. 41, ' Whosoever shall
compel thee to go a mUe, go with him two others.' The Cure-
tonian (with D and some Latin copies) make our Lord say, ' Go
three miles.' If we cannot admit that this is the true text,
then it is an emendation ; for it is no accidental change.

But there is a distinct group of emendations which vividly
illustrates our contention, that the Curetonian form of Syriae
text is pervaded by views of Gospel history which belong rather
to the Church than to the sacred records. While fully accepting
the Catholic dogma of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed
Virgin, we must grant that it is in the nature of a pious opinion,
which Christian sentiment recognized as true, but which is not
explicitly stated in the New Testament. Hence we view with
grave suspicion a class of emendations which are obviously

1 The forms in which 0. T. quotations appear in the Curetonian demand atten-
tion, as they seem to suggest similar inferences.

24

SYRIAC VERSIONS.

framed to confute the heresy of the Helvidians. Such a class is
found in St. Matt. i. In ver. 16, Pesh., ' Joseph the husband af
Mary ; ' Cur., ' Joseph to whom was espoused Mary the Virgin.'
Ver. 19, Pesh., ' Joseph her hushaind, being a just man ; ' Cur.,
' Joseph, because he was a righteous man.' Ver. 30, Pesh., ' Fear
not to take unto thee Mary thy vnfe ; ' Cur., ' Mary thy espoused.'
Ver. 24, Pesh., ' Joseph .... took unto him his wife ; ' Cur.,
' took Mary.' The Curetonian translator, for dogmatic purposes,
makes four distinct and separate omissions, in three of which he
stands unsupported — of the word husband in two places, of the
word wife in two others. These are emendations of a deliberate
and peculiar kind. We cannot account for all these vagaries by
remarking that the Curetonian has often the support of the
so-called Western family of text ^. We must face the question
whether the MS. of an ancient version, which exhibits such
singular phenomena on its first page, is worthy to be set above
that version, which is the common heritage of the whole Syriac
Church, and which appears to be the basis of the Curetonian
itself. To determine the place of a document in our Apparatus
Criticus, we must know something of its history. Of the history
of the Curetonian yersion we know nothing. Its internal char-
acter inspires gi'ave doubts of its trustworthiness. We note its
peculiarities with interest; but we do not yet see our way to
yield much deference to its authority. The Peshitto bears wit-
ness to that form of text, which was received in very ancient
times in the Syriac Church. The Curetonian, like the Pales-
tinian, is interesting as showing what readings were accepted
locally, or by individual editors ^.

' E. g. in the transposition of the Beatitudes in St. Matt. v. 4, 5.

^ Since the discovery of the Curetonian version in Syriac by Archdeacon
Tattam in 18i2 and Canon Cureton, some Textualists have maintained that it
was older than the Peshitto on these main grounds : —

1. Internal evidence proves that the Peshitto cannot have been the original

text. ,

2. The Curetonian is just such a text as may have been so, and would have

demanded revision.

3. The parallels of the Latin texts which were revised in the Vulgate suggests

an authoritative revision between a.d. 250 and 350.
These arguments depend upon a supposed historical parallel, and internal
evidence.

The parallel upon examination turns out to be illusory : —

I. There was a definite recorded revision of the Latin Texts, but none of the

Syrian. If there had been, it must have left a trace in history.

HARKLEIAN. 25'

3. The HarJdeian or Philoxenian Syriac.

Of the history of the Harkleian Syriac version, which embraces
the whole New Testament except the Apocalypse, we possess
more exact information, though some points of difficulty may
stiU remain unsolved. Moses of Aghel in Mesopotamia, who
translated into Syriac certain works of the Alexandrian Cyril
about A.D. 550, describes a version of the 'New Testament and
Psalter made in Syriac by Polycarp, Kural-Bishop ^ (rest his
soul !), for Xenaias of Mabug,' &c. This Xenaias or Philoxenus,
from whom the original translation takes its name, was Mono-
physite Bishop of Mabug (Hierapolis) in Eastern Syria (488-518),
and doubtless wished to provide for his countrymen a more
literal translation from the Greek than the Peshitto aims at
being. His scheme may perhaps have been injudicious, but it
is a poor token of the presence of that quality which ' thinketh
no evil,' to assert, without the slightest grounds for the suspicion,
'More probable it is that his object was of a less commendable
character ; and that he meant the version in some way to
subserve the advancement of his party ^.' Dr. Davidson will
have learnt by this time, that one may lie under the imputation
of heresy, without being of necessity a bigot or a dunpe.

a. There was an 'infinita varietas' (August. De Dootr. Chi-ist., ii. 11) of dis-
cordant Latin texts, but only one Syriac, so far as is known.
3. Badness in Latin texts is just what we should expect amongst people who
were poor Greek scholars, and lived at a distance. The Syrians on the
contrary were close to Judea, and Greek had heen known among them
for centuries. It was not likely that within reach of the Apostles and
almost within their lifetime a version should be made so bad as to
require to be thrown off afterwards.
As to internal evidence, the opinion of some experts is balanced by the
opinion of other experts (see AbbS Martin, Des Versions Syrionnes, Fasc. 4)-
The position of the Peshitto as universally received by Syrian Christians, and
believed to date back to the earliest times, is not to be moved by mere con-
jecture, and a single copy of another version [or indeed by two copies].
Textual Guide, Miller, 1885, p. 74, note 1.

' On the order, functions, and decay of the XtopciriaKoiroi, ^see Bingham's
' Antiquities,' book ii, chap. xiv.

'- ' Davidson, Bibl. Crit., vol. ii. p. 186, first edition. The Abb^ Martin (see
p. 323 note), after stating that this version was never used by any Syrian sect
save the Monophysites or Jacobites, goes on to ask ' Est-ce h. dire que cette ver-
sion soit entach^e de monophysisme ? Nous ne le pensons pas ; pour I'afSrmer,
il faudra I'examiner tr6s minutieusement ; car I'h^rSsie monophysite est, h
quelques points de vue, une des plus subtiles qui aient jamais paru ' (Des Ver-
sions Syriennes, p. 162),

26 SYRIAC VERSIONS.

Our next account of the work is even more definite. At the
end of the manuscripts of the Gospels from which the printed
text is derived, we read a subscription by the first hand, import-
ing that ' this book of the four holy Gospels was translated out
of the Greek into Syriac with great diligence and labour . . . first
in the city of Mabug, in the year of Alexander of Macedon 819
(a.d. 508), in the days of the pious Mar Philoxenus, confessor,
Bishop of that city. Afterwards it was collated with much
diligence by me, the poor Thomas, by the help of two [or three]
approved and accurate Greek Manuscripts in Antonia, of the
great city of Alexandria, in the holy monastery of the Antonians.
It was again written out and collated in the aforesaid place in the
year of the same Alexander 927 (a.d. 616), Indiction iv. How
much toil I spent upon it and its companions the Lord alone
knoweth . . . &c.' It is plain that by ' its companions ' the othet
parts of the N. T. are meant, for a similar subscription (specify-
ing but one manuscript) is annexed to the Catholic Epistles.

That the labour of Thomas (surnamed from Harkel, his native
place, and like Philoxenus, subsequently Monophysite Bishop of
Mabug) was confined to the collation of the manuscripts he
names, and whose various readings, usually in Greek characters,
with occasional exegetical notes, stand in the margin of all
Gopies but one at Florence, is not a probable opinion. It is
likely that he added the asterisks and obeli which abound in
the version i, and G. H. Bernstein (De Charklensi N. T. transl.
Syriac. Commentatio, Breslau, 1837) believes that he so modified
the text itself, that it remains in the state in which Polycarp left
it only in one codex now at Kome, which he collated for a few
chapters of St. John.

We have been reminded by Tregelles, who was always ready
to give every one his due, that our own Pococke in 1630, in the
Preface to his edition of the Catholic Epistles not included in
the Peshitto, both quotes an extract from Dionysius Barsalibi,
Bishop of Amida (Diarbekr), who flourished in the twelfth

' The asterisks (jj ^) and obeli (3 -,-) of this version will be observed in our
specimens given below. Like the similar marks in Origen's Hexapla (from vfhich
they were doubtless borrowed), they have been miserably displaced by copyists ;
so that their real purpose is a little uncertain. Wetstein, and after him even
Storr and Adler, refer them to changes made in the Harkleian from the
Peshitto : White more plausibly considers the asterisk to intimate an addition
to the text, the obelus to recommend a removal from it.

HARKLEIAN. 27

century, whicli mentions this version, and even shows some
acquaintance with its peculiar chai-acter. Although again
brought to notice in the comprehensive ' Bibliotheca Orientalis '
(1719-28) of the elder J. S. Assemani [1687-1768], the Harkleian
attracted no attention until 1730, in which year Samuel Palmer
sent from Diarbekr to Dr. Gloucester Eidley four Syriac manu-
scripts, two of which proved to belong to this translation, both
containing the Gospels, one of them being the only extant copy
of the Acts and all the Epistles. Fortunately Ridley [1702-
1774] was a man of some learning and acuteness, or these pre-
cious codices might have lain disregarded as other copies of the
same version had long done in Italy ; so that though he did not
choose to incur the risk of publishing them in full, he com-
municated his discovery to Wetstein, who came to England once
more, in 1746, for the purpose of collating them for his edition of
the N. T., then soon to appear : he could spare, however, but
fourteen days, for the task, which was far too short a time, the
rather as the Estrangelo character, in which the manuscripts
were written, was new to him. In 1761 Eidley produced his
very careful and valuable tract, De Syriacarum N. F. Versionum
Indole atque Usu Dissertatio, and on his death his manuscripts
went to New College, of which society he had been a Fellow.
The care of publishing them was then undertaken by the
Delegates of the Oxford Press, who selected for their editor
Joseph White [1746-1814], then FeUow of Wadham College and
Professor of Arabic, afterwards Canon of Christ Church; who,
though now, I fear, chiefly remembered for the most foolish
action of his life, was an industrious, able, and genuine scholar.
Under his care the Gospels appeared in two vols. 4to, 1778 ^, with

■^ 'Sacrorum Evangeliorum Versio Syriaca Philoxeniana, ex Codd. MSS.
Sidleianis in Bibliotheca Novi CoUegii Oxon. repositis ; nunc primum edita,
cum Interpretatione Latina et Annotationibus JosepM Wbite. Oxonii e Typo-
grapbeo Clarendoniano,' 1778, 2 torn. 4to. And so for the two later volumes.
Eidley named that one of his manuscripts which contains only the Gospels
Codex Barsalibaei, as notes of revision by that writer are found in it (e. g. John
vii. 53 — viii. 11). G. H. Bernstein has also published St. John's Gospel
(Leipzig, 1853) from manuscripts in the Vatican. In or a,bout 1877 Professor
Isaac H. Hall, an American missionary, discovered at Beerut a manuscript in the
Estrangelo character, much mutilated (of which he kindly sent me a photo-
gi-aphed page containing the end of St. Luke and the beginning of St. John),
which in the Gospels follows the Harkleian version, although the text differs
fiiuch from. White's, but the rest of the N. T. is from the Peshitto. Dr. Hall has
drawn up a list of over 300 readings differing from White's.

28 SYRIAC VERSIONS.

a Latin version and satisfactory Prolegomena; the Acts and
Catholic Epp. in 1799, the Pauline in 1803. Meanwhile Storr
(Observat. super N. T. vers. Syr., 1772) and Adler (N. T. Version.
Syr., 1789) had examined and described seven or eight con-
tinental codices of the Gospels in this version, some of which
are thought superior to White's^.

The characteristic feature of the Harkleian is its excessive
closeness to the original : it is probably the most servile version
of Scripture ever made. Specimens of it will appear on pp. 38-
40, by the side of those from other translations, which will
abundantly justify this statement. The Peshitto is beyond
doubt taken as its basis, and is violently changed in order to
force it into rigorous conformity with the very letter of the
Greek. In the twenty verses of Matt, xxviii we note seventy-six
such alterations : three of them seem to concern various readings
(vers. 2-18 ; and 5 inarg.) ; six are inversions in the order ; about
five are substitutions of words for others that may have grown
obsolete : the rest are of the most frivolous description, the
definite state of nouns being placed for the absolute, or vice
versa ; the Greek article represented by the Syi-iac pronoun ; the
inseparable pronominal affixes (that delicate peculiarity of the
Aramaean dialects) retrenched or discarded ; the most unmeaning
changes made in the tenses of verbs, and the lesser particles. Its
very defects, however, as being servilely accurate, give it weight
as a textual authority: there can be no hesitation about the
readings of the copies from which such a book was made. While
those employed for the version itself in the sixth century
resembled more nearly our modern printed editions, the three or
more codices used by Thomas at Alexandria must have been
nearly akin to Cod. D (especially in the Acts), and, next to D,
support BL, 1, 33, 69. ' Taken altogether,' is Dr. Hort's comment,
' this is one of the most confused texts preserved : but it may be
rendered more intelligible by fresh collations and better editing,
even if they should fail to distinguish the work of Thomas of
Harkel from that of his predecessor Polycarpus ' (Introd.,
p. 156).

The number of MSS. of this Harkleian version is far greater

' Martin names as useful for the study of a version as yet too little known
the Leotionaries Bodleian 43 ; Brit. Mus. Addit. 7170, 7171, 7172, 14,490, 14 689
18,714 ; Paris 51 and 52 ; Eome, Vatic. 36 and Barberini vi. 82.

HARKLEIAN. 2g

than it was supposed to have been. The impoi-tant discovery of
the Mohl MS., now in the possession of the Cambridge University
Library, brings down the Epistle to the Hebrews to the con-
clusion, so that we now possess the Pauline Epistles complete
in this revision. ^ ^-J^.^ £;-/^ >[.

The following account of the MSS. of the Harkleian, consists
in his own words of what Mr. Deane has seen him^lf, many
of which he has collated. The letters are those by which he
intended to have designated these MSS. had his sight enabled
him to complete his revision.

A. Cod. Mus. Brit. Add. 14,469. Saec. x (Wright's Catalogue cxx).
Very important.

_ B. Cod. Mus. Brit. Eich 7163. Saec. ix. x (Forshall's Catalogue
xix). Very important.

C. Cod. Bibl. Bodl. Oxon. ' Cod. Or. 130.' Saec. xii.

D. Cod. Bibl. Coll. Nov. Oxon. 333. Perhaps not so important as E.

F. Cod. Bibl. Bodl. Oxon. Dawk. 50.

G. Cod. Mus. Brit. Kich 7164. Saec. xii (Forshall's Catalogue xx).
H. Cod. Mus. Brit. Eich 7165. Saec. xiii (Forshall's Catalogue xxi).

In this MS. the two first lines of each page are for the most part obliter-
ated by damp.

K. Cod. Mus. Brit. Eich 7166. Saec. xv. xvi (Forshall's Catalogue
xxii).

L. Cod. Mus. Brit. Eich 7167. Saec. xv. xvi.

Q. Cod. Mus. Brit. Add. 17,124. Saec. xiii (No. 65 Wright's
Catalogue).

E. Cod. Bibl. Coll. Nov. Oxon. 334.

S. Cod. Bibl. Bodl. Oxon. Orient. 361. Saec. xiv.
T. Cod. Bibl. Bodl. Oxon. Poo. 316.

U. Cod. Mus. Brit. Eich 7167. Saec. xv. xvi. Fragments on
St. Matthew only.

V. Cod. Mohl. Cambridge University Library. Saec. xii.

The last of these would probably be the text from which any
new edition would be printed. It is a most remarkable MS., ex-
ecuted with great care, and by a good Syrian scholar. Students
should observe especially the curious diacritic point by which he
designates the Nom. pendens. ' I have not seen,' Mr. Deane adds,
' that elsewhere, though doubtless it exists ^.'

1 See also Syriac Manuscript Gospels of a Pre-Harklensian version, Acts and
Epp. of the Peshitto version ... by the Monk John. Presented to the Syrian
Protestant College, &c., described with phototyped fasoimiles by Prof. Isaac H.
Hall [viii-ix], ff. 219 + a fragment at end. Mvt. at beg. and end, &c. Written
in old Jacobite characters. Sent courteously to the Editor.

30 SYRIAC VERSIONS.

4. The Palestinian or Jerusalem Syriac.

There are extant several scattered fragments of the Old and
New Testaments, in a form of Syriac entirely distinct from the
versions already described. These fragments are all in one
dialect, and are apparently parts of a single version. The most
considerable portion is an Evangelistarium which was discovered
virtually by Adler, who collated, described, and copied a portion
of it (Matt, xxvii. 3-32) for that great work in a small compass,
his ' N. T. Versiones Syriacae' (1789) : S. E. Assemani the nephew
had merely inserted it in his Vatican Catalogue (1756). It is
apartial Lectionary of the Gospels in the Vatican (MS. Syr. 19),
on 196 quarto thick vellum leaves, written in two columns in
a rude hand, the rubric notes of Church Lessons in Garshunic,
i.e. Arabic in Syriac letters, with many mistakes. From a sub-
scription, we learn that the scribe was Elias, a presbyter of Abydos,
who wrote it in the Monastery of the Abbat Moses at Antioch, in
the year of Alexander 1341, or a.d. 1030. Adler gives a poor
facsimile (Matt, xxvii. 12-22) : the character is peculiar, and all
diacritic points (even that distinguishing dolath from risk), as
well as many other changes, are thought to be by a later hand,
Tregelles confirms Assemani's statement, which Adler had dis-
puted, that the first six leaves, showing traces of Greek writing
buried beneath the Syriac, proceeded from another scribe. The
remarkable point, however, about this version (which seems to
be made from the Greek, and is quite independent of the Peshitto)
is the peculiar dialect its exhibits, asd. which has suggested its
name. Its grammatical forms are far less Syriac than Chaldee,
which latter it resembles even in that characteristic particular,
the prefixing of yud, not nun, to the third person masculine of
the future of verbs ^ ; and many of the words it employs can be
illustrated only from the Chaldee portions of the Old Testament, or
from the Jerusalem, or Palestinian, Targum and Talmud ^. Adler's

' Thus also the termination of the definite state plural of nouns is made in
y^ for ( : the third person affix to plural nouns in wO for «oio . In the compass
of the six verses we have cited (below, p. 39) occur not only the Greek ■words
^o^.vO (Koi/jiSt), V. 3, and Keeoj (yaSs), v. 5, which are common enough in all
Syriac hooks, but such Palestinian words and forms as w? for ».• J, Si (to. 4 6, 7) •
^*ai, u. 3, 'when;' )o)l, v. 3, 'repented;' UojJ for Uoi (vv. i, 6, 8), 'blood;'
oa*Xi>., V. 4, 'to us;' PO*^, V. 5, 'himself; (^?, v. 6, 'price' (Pesh. has
»»ja^. Hark, ^sa^ (pi.), ri/ii?) ; ^'^^L^, r. 8, 'therefore ; ' ojot, ». 8, ' this.'

' Hence the name by which this version is distinguished. For the recensions
of Targum and Talmud, see Etheridge's 'Hebrew Literature,' pp. 145-6 195-7,

PALESTINIAN. 3I

account of the translation and its copyist is not very flattering,

' satis constat dialectum esse incnltam et inconcinnam . . ■. ortho-

graphiam autem vagam, inconstantem, arbitrariam, et ab imperito

librario rescribendo et corrigendo denuo impeditam ' (Vers. Syr.,

p. 149). As it is mentioned by no Syriac writer, it was probably

used but in a few remote churches of Lebanon or Galilee : but

though (to employ the words of Porter) ' in elegance far surpassed

by the Peshitto ; in closeness of adherence to the original by the

Philoxenian' (Principles of Textual Criticism, Belfast, 1848,

p. 356) ; it has its value, and that not inconsiderable, as a witness

to the state of the text at the time it was turned into Syriac ;

whether, with Adler, we regard it as derived from a complete

version of the Gospels made not later than the sixth century, or

with Tischendorf refer it to the fifth ^. TregeUes (who examined

the codex at Rome) wrongly judged it a mere translation of some

Greek Evangehstarium of a more recent date. Of all the

Syriac books, this copy and Barsalibi's recension of the Hark-

leian alone contain John vii. 53 — viii. 11 ; the Leotionary giving

it as the Proper Lesson for Oct. 8, St. Pelagia's day. In general

its readings much resemble those of Codd. BD, siding with B

eighty-five times, with D seventy-nine, in the portions published

by Adler ; but with D alone eleven times, with B alone but three.

The information afforded by Adler respecting this remarkable

document gave rise to a natural wish that the whole manuscript

should be carefully edited by some respectable scholar. This

has now been done by Count Francis Miniscalchi Erizzo, who

in 1861-4 published at Verona in two quarto volumes 'Evan-

geliarium Hierosolymitanum ex Codice Vaticano Palaestino

deprompsit, edidit, Latinfe vertit, Prolegomenis ac Glossario

adornavit Comes F. M. E.' This elaborate work, for such it is,

although its execution fails on the whole to satisfy critics of

the calibre of Land and the Abbe Martin, ends with a list of

those chapters and verses of the Gospels (according to the

notation of the Latin Vulgate), which the manuscript contains

* Dr. Hort's not very explicit judgement should now be added : ' The Jeru-
salem Syriac Lectionaiy has an entirely different text [from the Harkleian],
probably not altogether unaffected by the Syriac Vulgate [meaning thereby the
Peshitto], but more closely related to the Old Syriac [meaning the Curetonian].
Mixture with one or more Greek texts containing elements of every great type,
but especially the more ancient, has however given the whole a strikingly
composite character' ^^Introd., p. 157).

32 SYRIAC VERSIONS.

in full. Tischendorf, in the eighth edition of his Greek Testa-
ment, enriched his notes with the various readings these Church
Lessons exhibit ; their critical character being much the same as
Adler's slight specimen had given us reason to expect^. The
Lectionary closely resembles that of the Greek Church, the
slight differences in the beginnings and endings of the Lessons
scarcely exceeding those subsisting between different Greek
copies, as noticed in our Synaxarion. It contains the Sunday
and week-day Gospels for the first eight weeks beginning at
Easter (with a few verses lost in two places of Week Tin) ; the
Saturday and Sunday Gospels only for the rest of the year;
the Lessons for the Holy Week, complete as detailed in Vol. I. 85,
with two or three slight exceptions ; and the eleven Gospels
of the Eesurrection. In the Menology or Calendar of Immove-
able Feasts, there is a greater amount of variation in regard
to the Saints' Days kept, as indeed we might have looked
for beforehand. We subjoin a list of those whose Gospels are
given at length in the manuscript, together with the portions of
Scripture appointed for each day, in order that this curious
Syriac service-book may be compared with that of the Greeks.

September 1. Simaan Alepimis Stylites. 3. Commemoratio patris nostri
Anthioma, John x. 7-16. 4. Babul et pnerorum et sanctorum qui cum
eo, Luke x. 1-12. 5. Zacbarias, father of the Baptist, Matt, xxiii. 29-39.
6. Eudoxio, Mark xii. 28-37. 8. Birthday of the Virgin, Matins, Luke
i. 39-56. Ad Missam, as p. 87. Sunday before Elevation of the Cross,
as p. 87. 14. Elevation of the Cross, John xi. 63; xix. 6-35. 15.
Nikita, Matt. x. 16-22. 16. Eufemia, p. 87, note 2. 20. Eustathios et
sociorum ejus, Luke xxi. 12-19. 21. Jonah the Prophet, Luke xi. 29-33.
30. Gregory the Armenian^, Matt. xxiv. 42-51.

October 3. Dionosios the Bishop, Matt. xiii. 45-54. Blagia (p. 87,
note 3), John viii. 1-11. 18. Luke, as p. 87. 21. Patris nostri
Ilarion, Luke vi. 17-23. 25. SS. Soriptorum Marciano et Martorio,
Luke xii. 2-12. 26. Demetrius et commemoratio terrae motus, Matt,
viii. 23-27.

November 1. SS. T[h]aumaturgorum Kezma et Damian, Matt. x. 1-8.

December 4. Barbara, Mark v. 24-34. 20. Ignathios, as p. 88. 22.
Anastasia, Mark xii. 28-44. ' Dominica ante Nativitatem, et patrum
(compare p. 88). In nocte Nativitatis, as p. 88. 25. Christmas Day,
sanctorum,' Matt. i. 1-17. 24. Ad mat. Nativitatis, Matt. i. 18-25

' On these readings, and those of the MSS. mentioned below (p. 34), see ' The
New Syriae Fragments ' (P. H. Woods), in the Expository Times, Nov. 1893.

' See the 'Life and Times of Gregory the Illuminator, the Founder and
Patron Saint of the Armenian Church,' translated by the Eev. S. C. Malan
London, 1868. ' '

PALESTINIAN. 33

as p. 88. 26. Gommemoratio dominae Mart. Mariam, as p. 88. 28.
Jacol), frater Domini \ Mark vi. 1-5 (p. 88).

January 1. Circumcision, as p. 88. 3. Matt. iii. 1, 5-11. Saturday
and Sunday 'ante missam aquae,' as p. 88. 5. Nocte missae aquae,
p. 88. 6. Missa aquae (both Lessons), as p. 88. 7. Commemoration of
John the Baptist, as p. 88. Saturday and Sunday post missam aquae,
as p. 88. 8. Luke iii. 19-22. 10. John x. 39-42. 11. Luke xx. 1-8.
Theodosis, Luke vi. 17-23. 15. Juhanna Tentorii, Matt. iv. 25; v. 1-12.
28. Patris nostri Efrem, Matt. v. 14-19.

February 2. Ingressus Domini Jesu Christi in templum, as p. 88.
24. Finding of the Head of John the Baptist, ad Mat. as p. 88 : oi
Missam, Matt. xi. 2-15.

March 9. Martyrii xl martyrum Sebastis, Matt. xx. 1-16. 25. Annun-
tiationis Deiparae, ad Missam, as p. 88.

April 1. Mariam Aegyptiacae, Luke vii. 36-50 (compare p. 88, note 2).
May 8. Evan. Juhanna fil. Zebdiai^ as p. 88.

June 14. Proph.Elisha,Lukeiv. 22-30'- 24. Birth of John the Baptist,
asp. 88. 29. Peter, asp. 88. 30. The Twelve Apostles, Matt. ix. 36 — x. 8.
July 22. Mariam Magdalanis, Luke viii. 1-3.

August 1. Amkabian Ascemonith, et filiorum suorum. Matt. x. 16-22.
6. Apparitio Domini nostri Jesu Christi in Monte Thabur, Luke ix. 28-36 ;
Matt. xvii. 1-9 ; 10-22. 29. Beheading of John the Baptist, as p. 88.

Appendix. Sanctae Christianae, Matt. xxv. 1-13 {see Sept. 24, p. 88).
Justorum, Matt. xi. 27-30. Dominica xi. Matt. xv. 21-28.

This' last [of the Ganaanites, p. 88) had been omitted in its usual
place, and two lessons inserted about the same place, which are not in
the Greek, viz. ' Jejunio sancto Banscira fer. 4, vesp. Mark xi. 22-25,'
and ' fer. 6, vesp. John xv. 1-12.'

A new edition of Adler's Evangelistarium was projected by
the late Dr. P. A. de Lagarde, who made a fresh collation of
the MS. shortly before his death. The results have been pub-
lished in a posthumous work entitled ' Bibliothecae Syriacae
a Paulo de Lagarde coUectae,' 1892. The latter part contains
the Evangelistarium, with the text set out in the order of the
Gospels, instead of that of the Church Lessons, and notes are
added on the readings of the MS. and its correctors, and on the
edition of Miniscalchi Erizzo.

Another edition has been announced by Mrs. Lewis*, the text to be
taken from two Leotionaries, which she has recently discovered in the
Library of the Convent on Mount Sinai, with a collation of the readings
of the Vatican MS.

Some fragments of other MSS. of the same Evangelistarium are pre-
served in the British Museum (Add. 14,450, fol. 14, and 14,664, foil. 17,

' Kept by the Greeks Oct. 23. Gale 0. 4. 22 and other Greek Evangelistaria
commemorate this holiday.

' Dec. 27 in the Western Calendar.

' So Gale 0. 4. 22, with the same Lesson. * See Athenaevm, Oct. 28, 1893.

VOL. II. D

gi. SYRIAC VERSIONS.

20, 21), and in the Imperial Library, St. Petersburg. They have been
published by Professor Laud in ' Anecdota Syriaca,' torn, iv, 1875, with
a fragment of Acts (xiv. 6-13), in the St. Petersburg Library.

Mr. J. Kendel Harris has published in ' Biblical Fragments from
Mount Sinai' a leaf containing Gal. ii. 3-5, 12-14 ; iii. 17, 18, 24-28,

The same library is said to contain other remains of Palestinian
literature, patristic translations as well as biblical fragments.

In the Bodleian Library are four fragments, Col. iv. 12-18;
I Thess. i. 1-3; iv. 3-15; 3 Tim. i.lO— ii. 7; Titus i. 11— ii. 5,
an edition of which has been accomplished by the Rev. G. H.
Gwilliam^

5. 'The Karkaphensian' or Syriac Massorah.
Assemani (Biblioth. Orient., tom. ii. p. 283), on the authority
of Gregory Bar-Hebraeus, mentions what has been supposed
to have been a Syriac ' version' of the N. T., other than the
Peshitto and Harkleian, which was named 'Karkaphensian'
(jliL.ai9j^), whether, as he thought, because it was used by
Syrians of the mountains, or from Carcuf, a city of Mesopo-
tamia. Adler (Vers. Syr., p. 33) was inclined to believe that
Bar-Hebraeus meant rather a revised manuscript than a
separate translation. Cardinal Wiseman, in the course of
those youthful studies which gave such seemly, precocious,
deceitful promise (Horae Syriacae, Rom. 1828), discovered in the
Vatican (MS. Syr. 152) a Syriac manuscript of readings from
both Testaments, with the several portions of the New standing
in the following order ; Acts, James, i Peter, i John, the four-
teen Epistles of St. Paul, and then the Gospels, these being the
only books contained in the true Peshitto. In the margin
also are placed by the first hand many readings indicated by
the abbreviation a^, the title of some scribe or teacher^. The
codex is on thick yellow vellum, in large folio, with the two
columns so usual in Syriac writing ; the ink, especially the points
in vermilion, has often grown pale, and it has been carefully
retouched by a later hand ; the original document being all the
work of one scribe : some of the marginal notes refer to various
readings. There are several long and tedious subscriptions in

' Anecdota Oxoniensia, ' The Palestinian Version of the Holy Scripture ;' edited
by G. H. Gwilliam, B.D. : Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1893.

" The full form ()a:3ciJ Messed) occurs in the soholion to Rom. viii. 75 ; Wiseman
thought it meant the Peshitto ; but see 'Studia Biblica,' iii. 60 and note.

KARKAPHENSIAN OR MASSORAH. 35

the volume, wliereof one states that the copy was -written 'in
the year of the Greeks 1291 (a.d. 980) in the [Monophysite]
monastery of Aaron on [mount] Sigara, in the jurisdiction of
Calisura, in the days of the Patriarchs John and Menna, by
David a deacon of Urin in the jurisdiction of Gera' [Feppa, near
Beroea or Aleppo]. It may be remarked that Assemani has
inserted a letter in the ' Bibliotheca Orientalis ' from John the
Monophysite Patriarch [of Antioch] to his brother Patriarch,
Menna of Alexandria. This manuscript, of which Wiseman gives
a rather rude facsimile, is deemed by him of great importance
in tracing the history of the Syriac vowel-points. Other Karka-
phensian manuscripts have been examined since Wiseman's time ;
and all, whether containing more, or less, of the actual text,
agree in the parts which are common, with, however, some
independent readings. We subjoin Matt. i. 19 in four texts,
wherein the close connexion of the Karkaphensian and the
Nestorian recension with the Peshitto is very manifest.

CnEETONIAir.

« o).N,N«-> ]^}Lo»3; jooi WM^fljo

Kestoman Massokah.
Cod. Add. Brit. Mus. 12,138.

loot

(sic) a-^it^o .oM-opiSjj ^=>j Ho

PESHnro Text — from the MSS.
|^U«^;. Jooi ijSiLio .ci*j»;SjJ )i=>, Jfo .)o« ^\d ^ ^ , \S ^j .a^cu

Hakkleiab — from Whiis.

luij^? o»^; )<^^ ^^ f ? 'S^oc*

'.ov^m*^? looi |o. )lo :)oo) woto&..<(

* Marg. vapaSeiyfiaTia'tti.

Jacobite Massoeah (' 1? atckaphensiaj>').
Cod. Add. Brit. Mus. 12,178.

Jooi UjLs oiSvai »-•• .SL£oo.<
oo) il^flio .OH^t-^?. M>i Vo

* 11

4 OMi.*-'

The reader must not be misled by this specimen to infer that
the Karkaphensian always coincides with the Peshitto. It is
not a continuous text, but only those verses or passages are
quoted where some word or words occur concerning which some
annotation is required in reference to orthography or pronun-
ciation. Whole verses or parts of verses are often omitted^.

Very recently, since the last iUness of Dr. Scrivener had com-

• Our speeimens show the use in MSS. of rucaca and iushaia, here printed with
fine points. The dots and dashes of the Nestorian Massorah are also shown.

D 3

36 SYRIAC VERSIONS.

menced, the results of a wider examination of Syriac MSS. m
different Libraries have been made more generally known by
Mr. Gwilliam's Essay in the third volume of ' Studia Biblica V
According to the investigations of the leading Syriac scholars, it
appears that the Karkaphensian is not a distinct version, but
a kind of Massorah — the attempt to preserve the best traditions
of the orthography and pronunciation of the more important or
difficult words of the Syriac Vernacular Bible. This Massoretic
teaching differs from the Hebrew Massorah, in that whilst the
latter supplies us with all that we know of the form of the
Jewish Scriptures 2, the Syriac Massorah is younger than our
oldest copies of the Syriac Bible. The following are Syriac
Massoretic MSS. :—

1. Cod. Add. B. M. 12,138, a Nestorian work, written A.n. 899 at
Harran.

2. Cod. Vaticanus 152, a.d. 980 (Wiseman, as above).

3. Cod. Add. B. M. 12,178, a Jacobite work of the ninth or tenth
century.

4. Cod. Barberinus, described by Bianchini in ' Evangeliarium Quad-
ruplex,' 1748, and afterwards by Wiseman, a.d. 1089 or 1093.

5. Cod. Add. B. M. 7183, also a Jacobite Massoretic work of the
early part of the twelfth century.

6. In the Bibliothfeque Nationale of Paris, a Massoretic MS.

7. M. rAbb6 Martin mentions another, a.d. 1015, in the Cathedral of
Mosul.

Thus the Massorah is extant in two forms, corresponding to the
two branches of the Syrian Church. But only one MS. is Nesto-
rian (Cod. Add. 12,138), whilst all except that one are Jacobite.

The name Karkaphensian is connected with the Jacobite

Massorah, and signifies the kind of text which was favoured

in the Scriptorium of the Skull Convent^- Allusions to the

Skull Convent are found; the adjective itself occurs in St.

Matt, xxvii. 33, and the parallel passages, as a translation

of KpavCov. It is known that grammatical and philological

studies were pursued by Jacob of Edessa (d. A. D. 710), probably

by Joseph Huzita, rector of the school at Nisibis (vi) ; and a tract

attached to Add. 12,178 suggests a connexion between these

criticisms and the labours of one ' Thomas the Deacon*.'

' studia Biblica et Ecclesiastioa, iii. 56.

' The Codex Babylonicus, a.d. 916, is the oldest 01d_ Testament MS. known
at present. Dr. Neubauer, Stud. Bibl. et Eccl., iii. 27.
' Karkaphta = skull. See also 'Thes. Syr.,' col. 3762.
• Mr. Gwilliam suggests that this may have been the well-known Thomas

KARKAPHEKSIAN OR MASSORAH. 37

We have now traced the history of tljje severaj Syriac ver-
sions, so far at least as to afford the reader some general idea of
their relative importance as materials for the corz-eotion of the
sacred text. We will next give parallel renderings of Matt. xii.
1-4; Mark xvi. 17-20 from the Peshitto, the Curetonian, and
the Harkleian, the only versions known in full; for Matt,
xxvii. 3-8, in the room of the Curetonian, which is here lost,
we have substituted the Jerusalem Syriac, and have retained
throughout Thomas' marginal notes to the Harkleian, its
asterisks and obeli. We have been compelled to employ the
common Syriac type, though every manuscript of respectable
antiquity is written in the Estrangelo character. Even from
thege slight specimens the servile strictness of the Harkleian,
and some leading characteristics of the other versions, will
readily be apprehended by an attentive student (e. g. of the Cure-
tonian in Matt. xii. 1 ; 4 ; Mark xvi. 18 ; 20).

We hoped to include in this account some description of the
MS. lately discovered by Mrs. Lewis in the Monastery of
St. Catherine, at Mount Sinai, and brought in copy last spring to
Cambridge. It is now undergoing the careful and skilful
examination which the character of the accomplished assistants
of Mrs. Lewis ensures, and it is impossible at present to
anticipate the verdict upon it which those scholars may recom-
mend, and which may be finally adopted by the learned world
at large. The photographic illustration of a page, which has
been made public *, does not suggest that the MS. possesses any
very remarkable antiquity. But it is due to our argument
upon the mutual relations of the Peshitto and the Curetonian to
i-emark, that the Curetonian will even then rest upon only two
MSS., one of them beiug a palimpsest, in face of the numerous
supports of the Peshitto, and that even if the Curetonian be
proved, as seems improbable, to date from somewhat further
back than we have supposed, the claim of the Peshitto to pro-
duction in the early part of the second century, and to a superior
antiquity, will not thereby be removed.

Heracleensis. M. I'AbM Martin (Tradition Kartaphienne, ou la Massore chez
les Syrians), who carefully studied the subject twenty years ago, suggests Thomas
of»Edessa, teacher of Mar Abbas. See Mr. Gwilliam's Essay in ' Stud. Bibl. et
Eccl.,' iii. pp. 56-65.
' ' How the Codex was found ' (Lewis and Gibson), 1893.

38

SYRIAC VERSIONS.

o

J

o

iij

?: A J, ■'\. ^ ^
1

■5 5

^l

■5
1^

I A

'?■■'" M 1? ^

5- =

60

g

n

'1.

X g

^ g

H

si

1 ^

-f i ^ 1 1 =- 1 i i i ^ :-

i

.'a

,3 -7 5 ii i ^ ^- ■? ;i -i :;• i

o- 3 -i ' '^^ 1 4 .1 ^^- ^i i 1 .^•

4' 4 i ^i 4" -^ i' ^ ^ /I --^

M

PARALLEL RENDERINGS.

39

;• %

s

1 ' U

^ 5.
o

3

J.

3 «

OS 03.

^

00

CO

E-i
H

- i ^ III If ;! 3 =^ ■;! 1? ^ 3
' •' ^ i" s- .^ ^ :: ? ^ ^ "

P5

CQ * — -

^ DO,

O

i

)-> fl ~.. ^ • .^ ' — ^ S" :(S1

:i g.

7

9~ «.

i?iii?aiaiiln

3 ii

o

5 ♦
•o

^

o

; 5. i ^ ^3, ^ ^? s ^-^ i ^ / -s

.9 zo ^3. i 4 S '-a j

o

V ^*- ^^ Tn "^ Q

00

i ? ^1 'i 1- ^' 1 2 : ^4 1 a '^ 3

4°

SYRIAC VERSIONS.

o
I

X

^ A -^ ^

o

I-

H

o

H

o

1 i ;i i ^ '

2 1,

o j ^

% 1- \ \

3 ^ 1- \

•f -] ^ ^- r - ^ •• 4 o

t i r y "-/ -1 g- :^ 1 i' ^

a-
3

•1. 7^

S

o

o

/
J

/

^;
.5.

•5

I

S

1

O

H

a 2 -a '^ - "51 1 1/ .3 :^
^ ..o — ^3 M ^ 2 "-g * —

^ - . to

•i 4 i -1 -i i 3 ■'

'V -> 'o.

CHAPTER III.

THE LATIN VERSIONS.

OINCE the publication of the third edition of this book, ex-
haustive work on the Old Latin Versions and the Vulgate,
commenced before for the University of Oxford, as is well
known amongst biblical scholars, by the Right Eev. Jolyi
Wordsworth, D.D., Bishop of Salisbury, with the assistance of
the Rev. H. J. White, has been prosecuted further, resulting
in the publication of three volumes of Old Latin Biblical
Texts, and of the edition of the Vulgate New Testament as far
as the end of St. Luke's Gospel. It was therefore with the live-
liest gratitude that the Editor received from the Bishop, in reply
to consultation upon a special point, an oifer to superintend
the entire revision of this chapter, if Mr. White would give him
his important help, notwithstanding other laborious occupations.
Mr. White has carried out the work under the Bishop's directioUj
rewriting most of the chapter entirely, but incorporating, where
possible. Dr. Scrivener's language.

(1) The Old Latin, previous to Jeromes Revision.

There are passages in the works of the two great Western
Fathers of the fourth ieentury, Jerome [345 ?-420] and Augustine
[354-430], whose obvious and literal meaning might lead us to
conclude that there existed in their time many Latin translations,
quite independent in their origin, and used almost indifferently
by the faithful. When Jerome, in that Preface to the Gospels
which he addressed to Pope Damasus (in 384), anticipates but
too surely the unpopularity of his revision of them among the
people of his own generation, he consoles himself by the reflection
that the variations of previous versions prove the unfaithfulness
of them all : ' verum non esse quod variat etiam maledicorum
testimonio comprobatur.' Then follows his celebrated assertion :
'Si enim Latinis exemplaribus fides est adhibenda, respondeant

42 LATIN VERSIONS.

quibus: tot enim sunt exemplaria pene quot codices^.' The
testimony of Augustine seems even more explicit, and at first
sight conclusive. In his treatise, De Doctrina Christiana (lib. ii.
cc. 11-15), when speaking of 'Latinorum interpretum infinita
varietas/ and 'interpretum numerositas/ as not without their
benefit to an attentive reader, he uses these strong expressions :
' Qui enim Scripturas ex hebraea lingua in Graecam verterunt,
numerari possunt, Latini autem interpretes nullo modo. Ut
enim cuique primis fidei temporibus in manus venit codex
Graecus, et aliquantulum facultatis sibi utriusque linguae habere
videbatur, ausus est interpretari ' (c. 11); and he soon after
specifies a particular version as preferable to the rest : ' In ipsis
autem interpretationibus Itala^ ceteris praeferatur. Nam est
verborum tenacior cum perspicuitate sententiae ' (cc. 14-15).

When, however, the surviving codices of the version or versions
previous to Jerome's revision came to be studied and published
by Sabatier ^ and Bianchini *, it was obvious that though there
were many points of diiference, there were still traces of
a source common to many, if not to all of them ; and on
a question of this kind, occasional divergency, however extensive,
cannot weaken the impression produced by resemblance, if it be
too close and constant to be attributable to chance, as we have
just seen. The result of a careful and thorough examination and
comparison of the existing Old Latin texts, is a conviction that
they are all but off-shoots from one, or at most two, parent stocks.
Now when, this fact fairly established, we look back at the
language employed by Jerome and Augustine, we can easily see

^ Of no passage is this judgement more true than of this actual sentence itself,
which is hardly quoted in the same way in any three MSS. ; see Wordsworth's
Vulgate, Fasc. 1, p. 2.

'^ For Itala Bentley conjectured et ilki, changing the following nam into quae ;
and he wrote to Sabatier almost ridiculing the idea of a ' Versio Italica ; ' see
Correspondence, ed. Wordsworth, 1842, p. 569 ; and ' Versio Latina Italica,
somnium merum,' in Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, pp. 157-159 ; Kaulen, Gesch.
d. Vulgata, Mainz, 1868, p. 116 f.; Abp. Potter conjectured usitata for liala; see
Field, Otium Norvicense, pars tertia, p. 57.

' Bibliorum Sacr. Latinae Versiones Ant. seu Vetus Italica etc. opera et studio
D. Petri Sabatier, 3 vols., Eheims, 1743-1749 ; a revised edition of this great work,
for the Old Test., is in course of preparation under the auspices of the Munich
Academy, and the able superintendence of Professor E. Wolffliu.

' Evangeliarium Quadruples Latinae Versionls Antiquae, seu Veteris Italicae,
editum ex codicibua manuscriptis ... a Josepho Blanchino, 2 vols., Borne, 1749 1
reprinted by Migne, Patr. Lat. xii, with the works of Eusebius Veroellensis.

OLD LATIN. 43

that, with some allowance for his habit of rhetorical exaggeration,
the former may mean no more by the term ' exemplaria ' than
that the scattered copies of the Latin translation in his own day
varied widely from each other; and though the assertions of
Augustine are too positive to be thus disposed of, yet he is here
speaking, not from his own personal knowledge so much as from
vague conjecture ; and of what had been done, not in his own
time, but ' in the first ages of the faith.'

On one point, however, Augustine must be received as a com-
petent and most sufficient witness. We cannot hesitate to believe
that one of the several recensions current towards the end of the
fourth century was distinguished from the rest by the name of
Itala^,s.nd. in his judgement deserved praise for its clearness and
fidelity. It was long regarded as certain that here we should
find the Old Latin version in its purest form, and that in Italy it
had been thus used from the very beginning of the Church, ' cum
Ecclesia Latina sine versione Latina esse non potuerit ' (Walton,
Proleg. X. i). Mill indeed reminds us that the early Church at
Kome was composed to so great an extent of Jewish and other
foreigners, whose vernacular tongue was Greek, that the need of
a Latin translation of Scripture would not at fii-st be felt ; yet
even he would not place its date later than Pius I (145J-157), the
first Bishop of Rome after Clement who bears a Latin name
(Mill, Proleg. § 377). It was not until attention had been specially
drawn to the style of the Old Latin version, that scholars began
to suggest Africa as the place, and the second half of the second
century as the time, of its origin. This opinion, which had
obtained favour with Eichhorn and some others before him, may
be considered as demonstrated by Cardinal Wiseman, in his
' Two letters on some parts of the controversy concerning
I John V. 7^.' So far as his argument rests on the Greek
character of the Eoman Church, it may not bring conviction
to the reflecting reader. Even though the early Bishops of
Rome were of foreign origin, though Clement towards the end of
the first, Gaius the presbyter late in the second century, who are
proved by their names to be Latins, yet chose to write in Greek ;

» That is, by scholars who did not live in Italy ; Italian Christians would use
other names, vetus, antiqua, usitata, communis, vulgata ; Kaulen, p. 118, Berger, p. 6.

» Published in the Catholic Magazine for 1882-3 ; since reprinted in his 'Essays
on various subjects,' 1853, vol. i.

44

LATIN VERSIONS.

it does not follow that the Church would not contain many
humbler members, both Romans and Italians, ignorant of any
language except Latin, and for whose instruction a Latin version
would be required. On the ground of internal evidence, however,
Wiseman made out a case which all who have followed him,
Lachmann, Tischendorf, Davidson, Tregelles, accept as irresistible;
indeed it is not easy to draw any other conclusion from his
elaborate comparison of the words, the phrases, and grammatical
constructions of the Latin version of Holy Scripture, with the
parallel instances by which they can be illustrated from African
writers, and from them only (Essays, vol. i. pp. 46-66)^. It is
impossible to exhibit any adequate abridgement of an investiga-
tion which owes all its cogency to the number and variety of
minute particulars, each one weak enough by itself, the whole
comprising a mass of evidence which cannot be gainsaid. In
the works of Apuleius and of the African Fathers, Tertullian
[150 ?-220 ?], Cyprian [f 358], and in the following century,
Arnobius, Lactantius, Augustine, we obtain a glimpse into the
genius and character of the dialect in which the earliest form of
the Old Latin version is composed. We see a multitude of words
which occur in no Italian author so late as Cicero ; constructions
(e. g. dominantur eorv/m, Luke xxii. 25 ; faciam vos fieri, Matt,
iv. 19) or forms of verbs (sive consolamur . . . sive exhortamur,
a Cor. i. 6) abound ^, which at Eome had long been obsolete ;
while the lack of classic polish is not ill-atoned for by a certain
vigour which,characterize3 this whole class of writers, but never
degenerates into barbarism.

The European and Italian forms of the Old Latin version
will be discussed afterwards.

The foUowiag manuscripts of the version are extant. They

' We have let these sentences stand as Dr. Scrivener penned them in 188S ;
since that time the opinion of scholars has become less positive as to the African
origin of the Latin version. It is true that the vyords, phrases, &c., of that
version in its earlier forms can be illustrated from contemporary African writers,
and from them only ; but that is because during this period we are dependent
almost exclusively on Africa for our Latin literature ; and consequently are able
to use only the method of agreement and not the method of difference in testing the
origin and characteristics of the Latin New Testament. These characteristics
may be the result only of the time and not of the supposed place of writing. Nor
can more stress be laid on the use of Greek names in the West than on the use
of Latin names (plenty of which could be cited) in the East.

" See Kaulen, p. 130 f., and also his Handb. d. Vulg., Mainz, 1870.

OLD LATIN. 45

are usually cited by the small italic letters of the alphabet,
according to the custom set by Lachmann (184.2-1850), which
has been considerably extended, and partially altered, since
his time. His a 6 c c? of the Gospels, d e oi the Acts, and g of
St. Paul, remain the same, but his / and / of St. Paul=our d
and e, and his A=Primasius.

Old Latin Manuscripts of the Gospels.

a. CoDBX Veecellbnsis [iv ?], at Vercelli ; according to a tradition
found in a document of the eighth century, this MS. was written by
Eusebius, Bishop of Vercellae (t 370); M. Samuel Berger, however,
and other scholars would place it later. It is written in silver
on purple vellum. Bianchini, when Canon of Verona, collated this
treasure in 1727; see E. Mangenot, Joseph Bianchini et les anciennes
versions latines (Amiens, 1892), who gives an interesting and sympa-
thetic account of his work. Mut. in many letters and words throughout,
and entirely wanting in Matt. xxiv. 49 — xxv. 16 ; Mark i. 22-34 ;
iv. 17—25; xv. 15 — xvi. 7 (xvi. 7-20 is in a later hand, taken from
Jerome's Vulgate); Luke i. 1-12; xi. 12-26; xii. 38-59. Published
by J. A. Irici (Sacrosanctus Evangeliorum Codex S. Eusebii Magni),
Milan, 1748, and by Bianchini on the left-hand page of his great
' Evangeliarium Quadruplex,' Eome, 1749; the latter edition has been
reprinted in Migne, Patr. Lat. tom. xii. Facsimile given in Zange-
meister and Wattenbach, Exempla codicum Latinorum, pi. 20
(Heidelberg, 1876); compare Bethmann in Pertz, Archiv, xii. p. 606,
and E. Eanke, Fragmenta Curiensia, p. 8. Bianchini's work seems to
have been extremely accurate, though he does not keep to the actual
division of the lines in the original manuscripts either here or in his
edition of b. The Gospels are in the usual Western order, Matthew,

John, Luke, Mark ; so also a^ b defff^ inqr.

If

b. Cod. Veeonensis [iv or v], also in Bianchini's ' Evangeliarpm
Quadruplex' on the right-hand page. Mut. Matt. i. 1-11, xv. 12-23,

a-/^ xxiii. 18-27; Mark xiii. ^-i^; 24— xvi. 20; Luke xix. 26— xxi. 29;
also John vii. 44 — viii. 12 is ( ■^

^j'li c. Cod. Colbertinus [»«}, at Paris (Lat. 254); New Testament, very
important, though so late ; edited in full by Sabatier {see p. 42, n. 3),
and in a smaller and cheaper form by J. Belsheira, Christiania, 1888;
Eelsheim's work however is, as usual, inaccurate. For the date of the MS.
see E. Eanke, Fragmenta Curiensia, p. 9. Beyond the Gospels, the version
is Jerome's, and in a later hand. See below under Vulgate MSS., no. 53.

d. Cod. Bbzae [vi], its Latin version ; see Vol. I. pp. 124-130, and for
its defects p. 124, n. 2; also Prof. J. Eendel Harris, A Study of Codex
Bezae, Cambridge, 1891 ; and F. H. Chase, The Syriac element in Codex
Bezae, London, 1893.

e. Cod. Palatintts [iv or v], now at Vienna (Pal. 1185), where it
was acquired from Trent between 1800 and 1829 ; on purple vellum,

46 LATIN VERSIONS.

14 X pf, written with gold and silver letters, as are Codd. ahfij, edited
by Tischendorf, Leipzig, 1847. Only the following portions are extant :
Matt. xii. 49 — ^xiii. 13 ; 24 — xiv. 11 {with breaks, twelve lines being lost) ;
22 — xxiv.49; xxviii. 2 — Johnxviii. 12 ; 25 — Lukeviii. 30; 48 — xi. 4 ;
24 — xxiv. 53; Mark i. 20— iv. 8; 19 — vi. 9; xii. 37-40; xiii. 2, 3;
24-27; 33-36; i.e. 2627 verses, including all St. John but 13 verses,
all St. Luke but 38. Another leaf, bought for Trinity College, Dublin,
by Dr. Todd before 1847, containing Matt. xiii. 13-23, was published by
Dr. T. K. Abbott in his edition of Cod. Z. It was recognized in 1880 to
be a fragment of e by Mr. French, the sub-librarian ; see also H. Linke,
Neue Bruchst. des Evang. Pal. (S. B. of the Munich Acad. 1893, Heft ii).

/. Cod. Beixianus [vi], at Brescia, edited by Bianchini beneath
Cod. b. Mut. Matt. viii. 16-26; Mark xii. 5 — xiii. 32; xiv. 63-62;
70 — xvi. 20. There are some bad slips in Migne's reprint of this MS.

ffy Cod. Coebeiensis i [viii or ix], containing the Gospel of
St. Matthew, now at St. Petersburg (Ov. 3, D. 326). It formerly
belonged to the great monastic Library of Corbey, or Corbie, on the
Somme, near Amiens ; and with the most important part of that Library
was transferred to St. Germain des Pr^s at Paris, in or about the year
1638, and was there numbered 21. The St. Germain Library, however,
suffered severely from theft and pillage during the French Revolution,
and Peter Dubrowsky, Secretary to the Eussian Embassy at Paris, seems
to have used his opportunities during that troublous time to acquire MSS.
stolen from public libraries ; ff^ with other MSS. fell into his hands and
was transferred to the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg about 1800-
1805. In 1695 Dom Jean Martianay, well known as the principal
editor of the Benedictine St. Jerome, published ff^ with a marginal
collation of the St. Germain Bible {g^, and the Corbey St. James
{see p. 52) in a small volume entitled ' Vulgata antiqua Latina et Itala
versio secundum Matthaeum e vetustissimis eruta monumentis illustrata
Prolegomenis ac notis nuncque primum edita studio et labore D. J. M. etc,
Parisiis, apud Antonium Lambin.' Bianchini reprinted it underneath
Cod. a, giving in its place a collation of ff^ in SS. Mark, Luke, and
John ; Sabatier, however, cites/", in Marki. 1— v. 11, but it is difficult to
know to what MS. he refers. Finally it has been re-edited by Belsheim
(Christiania, 1882). For the history of this MS., see Wordsworth, Old
Lat. Bibl. Texts, i. p. xxii, and Studia Biblica, i. p. 124; and for the
history of the Library at Corbey, Delisle, Bibliothfeque de I'Ecole des
Chartes, 1860, p. 438 ; E. S. Bensly, The missing fragment of the
Latin Translation of the Fourth Book of Ezra, p. 7 (Cambridge, 1875).

ff^. Cod. Coebeiensis ii [vi], now at Paris (Lat. 17,225), formerly at
Corbey, where it was numbered 195; it contains 190 leaves and is
written in a beautiful round uncial hand. Quoted by Sabatier, and a
collation given by Bianchini in Mark, Luke, and John ; published in full
by Belsheim (Christiania, 1887). Belsheim's work, however, has been
since revised by M. Berger and his revision communicated to the present
writer (H. J. White). Mut. Matt. i. 1— xi. 6 ; John xvii. 15 — xviii. 9 •
XX. 22— xxi. 8 ; Luke ix. 48— x. 21 ; xi. 45— xii. 6; and a few verses

OLD LATIN. 47

missing in Matt, xi, Mark ix and xvi ; Facsimile in Palaeogr. Soc. i.
pi. 87.

gTj. Cod. Sangermaitensis I [ix], now at Paris (Lat. 11,553); formerly
in the Library of St. Germain des Pr6s, where it was first numbered
15 and afterwards 86 ; it is the second volume of a complete Bible, the
first volume of which has been lost. This MS. was known to R. Stephens,
who in his Latin Bible, published 1538-40 and again 1546, quotes it
as Germ. Lat., in consequence of its breadth ; it was also examined
by E. Simon, who, writing in 1680, speaks of it at some length;
Martianay published a collation of its readings in his edition of the
Corbey St. Matthew (see under ff^ ; and Martianay's collation, which
indeed was faulty enough, was reprinted by Bianchini. John Walker,
Bentley's coadjutor in his great but unfinished work for the New
Testament, collated it carefully in 1720; and finally Bp. Wordsworth
published St. Matthew's Gospel with full Introductions in 1883 (Old
Latin Biblical Texts, No. 1 , Oxford), and has collated the other Gospels
for his edition of the Vulgate. J. Walker cited the MS. as ^ ; Bp.
Wordsworth cites it as jr, in St. Matthew, G in the other books of the
New Testament. The text can only be called strictly Old Latin in
St. Matthew, where it seems to be partly of the European, partly of the
Italian type ; in the other Gospels it is Vulgate, though largely mixed
with Old Latia readings. See below under Vulgate, MSS., no. 21.

gTjj. Cod. Sangbemanensis n [x], 116 leaves, Irish hand, with a
mixed Old Latin and Vulgate text. Now at Paris (Lat. 13,169), but
was originally at Angers, and then apparently at Mans in the province
of Tours ; possibly brought there by Ulgrinus, Bishop of Mans 1057-65.
See Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers Sifecles du M.A.,
p. 48.

h. Cod. Claeomontanus [iv or v], now in tlie Vatican Library (Lat.
7223), for which it was bought by Pius VI (1775-99), contains, like g^,
St. Matthew only in the Old Latin, the other Gospels being Vulgate.
Mut. Matt. i. 1 — iii. 15; xiv. 33 — xviii. 12. Sabatier gave extracts,
and Mai published St. Matthew in full in his ' Script. Vet. nova collectio
Vaticana,' iii. p. 257 (Rom. 1828); it has been republished by Belsheim
(Evangelium secundum Matthaeum . . . e codice olim Claromontano nunc
Vaticano), Christiania, 1892.

i. Cod. Vindobonensis [vii], at Vienna (Lat. 1235), formerly
belonging to an Augustinian Monastery at Naples, whence it was brought
with ninety-four other MSS. to Vienna in 1717; consists of 142 leaves,
and contains Luke x. 6— xxiii. 10; Mark ii. 17— iii. 29; iv. 4— x. 1 ;
33— xiv. 36; XV. 33-40. The MS. was described and edited by
r. C. Alter, the Mark fragments in G. E. H. Paulus' ' N. Report, d. bibl.
u. morgeiil. Literatur,' iii. pp. 115-170 (1791), the Luke fragments in
Paulus, Memorabilia, vii. pp. 58-95 (1795). Bianchini had, however,
previously obtained a collation for his ' Evangeliarium Quadruplex' from
the Count of Thnn and Hohenstein (afterwards Bishop of Gurk in
Carinthia), who had spent some time at the Court of Vienna; and
N. Forlosia, the principal Librarian at Vienna, had given him a careful

48 LATIN VERSIONS.

description of the MS. ; see ' Epistola Blanchinii ad Episcopuni
Gurcensem' in Bianchini's prolegomena. Knally Belslieim edited the
MS. completely in 1885 (Leipzig, Weigel), and Dr. Eudolf Beer revised
his edition for Bishop Wordsworth's edition of the Vulgate in 1888.

j. Cod. Sabzannensis or Saebtianus [v] was discovered in 1872 in
the Church of Sarezzano near Tortona. It consists of eight quires
written on purple vellum in silver letters, and contains (much mutilated)
292 verses of St. John, viz. i. 38— iii. 23 ; iii. 33— v. 20 ; vi. 29-49 ;
49-67; 68 — vii. 32; viii. 6 — ix. 21, written two columns on a page.
The text is peculiar, and much with abde. Guerrino AmelU, sub-
librarian of the Ambrosian Library (and now at the Benedictine
Monastery of Monte Cassino), published at Milan the same year a
' Dissertazione critico-storica,' 18 pp. (2nd edition, 1885), with a
lithographed facsimile, whose characters much resemble the round and
flowing shape of those in a bf. The MS. is now at Eome undergoing
careful restoration, but no part of it has yet been published.

L Cod. Bobiensis [v or vi], now in the National Library at Turin
(G. vii. 1 5), whither it was brought with a vast number of other books
from Bobbio ; traditionally asserted to have belonged to St. Columban,
who died in the monastery he had founded there, in 615. This MS. is
perhaps the most important, in regard to text, of all the Old Latin
copies, being undoubtedly the oldest existing representative of the
African type. It contains Mark viii. 8-1 1 ; 14-16; 19 — xvi. 9 ; Matthew
i. 1 — iii. 10; iv. 2 — xiv. 17; xv. 20-36; the order then was probably
John, Luke, Mark, Matthew. It was edited by F. F. Fleck in 1837,
and by Tischendorf in 1847-49; but so inaccurately by the former and
so inconveniently by the latter as to be little known and used by
students. It was finally edited by Bishop Wordsworth (1886) as No. 2
of the ' Old-Latin Bible Texts,' with full introduction, and with a disser-
tation on the text by Professor Sanday.

/. Cod. E1(edigbranus [vii], in the E^e^igeran Library at Breslau ;
from a note at the end of St^Jjuke's Gospel, it appears to have been
bought by Thomas von E\e3iger at Verona in the year 1569.
J. E. Scheibel in 1763 published SS. Matthew and Mark, far from
correctly. D. Schulz wrote a dissertation on it in 1814, and inserted his
collation of it in his edition of Griesbach's N. T., vol. i. 1827. It was
edited in full by H. F. Haase, Breslau (in the 'Index, leot. univ. Vratisl.'),
1865-66. Mut. Matt. i. 1 — ii. 15; John i. 1-16; vi. 32-61; xi. 56—
xii. 10; xiii. 34 — xiv. 23; xv. 3-15; xvi. 13 ad_fin.

m. This letter indicates the readings extracted by Mai from the
' Liber de divinis scripturis sive speculum,' ascribed to St. Augustine and
containing extracts from the whole N. T. except Philemon, Hebrews, and
3 John ; it also has a citation from the Epistle to the Laodiceans. It
resembles the 'Testimonia' of Cyprian (and indeed one MS. has the sub-
scription exjMcit testimoniorum) in that it consists of extracts from both
Testaments, arranged in chapters under various heads. This treatise
was published by Mai, first in the 'Spicilegium Eomanum,' 1843,
vol, ix. part ii. 1-88, and again in the 'Nova Patrum Bibliotheca,'

OLD LATIN. 49

Rome, 1852, voL i. part ii. 1-117; and Wiseman had drawn attention
to it in his celebrated 'Two Letters' {see p. 43), because it contains
r John V. 7 in two different places. Mai had published it from the
Sessorian MS. (no. 58) of the eighth or ninth century, so called from the
library of Sta. Croce in Gerusalemme (Bibliotheca Sessoriana) at Eome,
in which it is preserved (see Eeifferscheid, Bibl. Patr. Italica, ii. p. 129);
he furnished a facsimile. Recently the treatise has been excellently
edited by Dr. F. Weihrich in the Vienna 'Corpus script, eccl. lat.,'
vol. xii (Vienna, 1887), from six MSS. ; one of these is tiie Codex
rioriacensis (Libri MS. 16, now in the Bibl. Nat. at Paris, Nouv. acq. lat.
1 596), the readings of which are occasionally cited by Sabatier under the
name of floriac. {see Weihrich, p. xl, and L. Delisle, Cat. des MSS. des
fends Libri et Barrois, 1888, p. 25 and pi. iv. 1; also Palaeographical
Soc, series ii. pi. 34).

n. Feagmbnta Sangallbnsia [v or vi], in the Stiftsbjbliothek at
St. Gall, to which Library they have probably belonged from its founda-
tion. The fragments are bound up in a large book numbered 1394, and
entitled ' Veterum fragmentorum manuscriptis codicibus detractoruni
Collectio ; ' they contain Matt. xvii. 1 — xviii. 20; xix. 20 — xxi. 3;
xxvi. 56-60; 69-74; xxvii. 62— xxviii. 3; 8-20; Mark vii. 13-31;
viii. 32 — ix. 10; xiii. 2-20; xv. 22 — xvi. 13; to this must be added
a whole leaf containing John xix. 28-42, and a slip containing portions
of John xix. 13-27, which are in the Stadtbibliothek of the same city,
bound up in a MS. numbered 70 and entitled ' Casus monasterii Sancti
Galli ; ' and the conjecture of the Abb6 Batiffol and Dr. P. Corssen is
undoubtedly right that the fragment from St. Luke known as a^ (see
below) is also a part of this MS.

Tischendorf transcribed these fragments, intending to edit them him-
self, but died before he bad done so ; the transcripts were purchased from
his widow by the Clarendon Press in 1883, and published in the second
volume of ' Old Lat. Bibl. Texts ' (Oxford, 1886) by the Eev. H. J. White,
who revised them on the spot from the originals ; meanwhile they had been
published in France by the Abbe Batiffol (Note sur un Evangeliare de
Saint-Gall, Paris, Champion, 1884, and 'Fragmenta Sangallensia ' in the
Bevue archeologiqiie, pp. 305-321, for 1885). A facsimile was
appended to the Oxford edition, and is also given by the Palaeographical
Soc, series ii. plate 50. .

o [vii], another fragment at St. Gall, bound up in the same volume
with n, contains Mark xvi. 14-20; it may very possibly have been
written to complete the above-named MS. when it had lost its last leaf,
as it has the same number of lines to a page and begins exactly at the
point where n leaves off. Edited by Batiffol with n, and also in Old Lat.
Bibl. Texts, vol. ii.

p [vii or viii], also at St. Gall, bound up in the second volume of the
' Veterum fragmentorum Collectio ' (pp. 430-433). This fragment consists
of two leaves written in an Irish hand, and apparently belonging to
a ' Missa pro defunctis,' of which it was the Gospel ; it contains John xi.
16-44, introduced with the lines from Ps. Ixv, 'te decet dne,' &c. The
opening verses of the Gospel are adapted as an introduction of thp

VOL. II. E

50 LATIN VERSIONS.

lection ; the rest of the text is of the European type, hut (with r) con-
tains many peculiar Irish characteristics, p has been published three
times : by Forbes, in the ' Preface to the Arbuthnott Missal,' p. xlviii
(Burntisland, 1864); by Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, vol. i. Appen-
dix G, p. 197 (Oxford, 1869) ; and in Old Lat. Bibl. Texts, vol. ii.

q. Cod. Monacbnsis [vii], now in the Royal Library at Munich
(Lat. 6224) ; it was transferred hither in 1802 with other MSS. from the
Chapter Library of Freising, in which it was numbered 24 ; written by
a scribe named Valerianus. Contains the four Gospels, but mut. Matt. iii.
15 — iv. 23; v. 25— vi. 4; 28— vii. 8; John x. 11— xii. 38; xxi. 8-20;
Luke xxiii. 23-35; xxiv. 11-39; Mark i. 7-21; xv. 5-36. Published
in full by the Eev. H. J. White in Old Lat. Bibl. Texts, vol. iii (Oxford,
1888); facsimiles given in the Oxford edition and also by Silvestre
(Paleog. univ. ; quatrifeme partie, no. 158).

r or r^. Codex Usseeianus i [vii], in the Library of Trinity College,
Dublin (A. iv. 15) ; it is kept among the books which once belonged to
Archbishop Ussher, but nothing is known of its early history. The MS.
consists of 180 leaves or fragments, written in an Irish hand, but much
injured by damp ; it contains the four Gospels in the usual Old Latin
order, but mut. Matt. i. 1 — xv. 16; 31 — xvi. 13; xxi. 4-21; xxviii.
16-20; John i. 1-15; Mark xiv. 58— xv. 8; 29— xvi. 20. Published
in full by Professor T. K. Abbott, Evangeliorum versio antehiero-
nymiana (Dulilin, 1884); facsimiles are given in his edition, in the
Palaeographical Society, series ii. plate 33, and in the 'Facsimiles of
National MSS. of Ireland,' part i (1874), pi. ii. It contains the 2)ericope
de adultera in St. John, but in the Vulgate, not the Old Latin, text.

r^. Codex Usseeianus ii [ix or x], also in the Library of Trinity
College, Dublin (A. iv. 6). Contains the four Gospels, St. Matt, in the
Old Latin and in a text allied to r^ ; St. Mark, the early part of
St. Luke, and the small portion (only five leaves) extant of St. John,
present a text, very near the Vulgate. Dr. Abbott inserted a collation of
this MS. in the second volume of his book, and also a facsimile. Mut.
Matt. i. 1-18; ii. 6— iv. 24; v. 29— xiii. 7; xiv. 1— xvi. 13 ; xviii. 31—
XIX. 26; xxvii. 58— xxviii. 20; Mark iii 23— iv. 19; v. 31— vi. 13;
Luke i. 1-13; ii. 15— iii. 8; vi. 39— vii. 11; xi. 53— xii. 45; xiv!
18— XV. 25; xvi. 15— xvii. 7; xxii. 35-59; xxiii. 14— xxiv. 53; John
1- 1— V. 12; vi. 24 — viii. 7; x. 3— xxi. 25.

s. Fbagmenta Ambeosiana [vi], now in the Ambrosian Library at
Milan, where they are bound up in a volume (C. 73 inf.) containing
various treatises; they belonged originally to the Monastery of St.
Columban at Bobbio. Four leaves only remain, containing Luke xvii.
3-29 ; xviii. 39— xix. 47 ; xx. 46— xxi. 22. They have been edited by
Ceriani, Monumenta sacra et profana, torn. i. fasc. i (Milan, 1861) and
again in Old Lat. Bibl. Texts, vol. ii; a facsimile is given by the
Palaeographical Society, series i. plate 54.

t. Feagmenta Beenbnsia [v], palimpsest fragments, now at Berne,
where they are bound up in a volume numbered 611; exceedinglv

l/

OLD LATIN. 51

difficult to decipher, as the later writing is parallel to the original text.
Contain Mark i. 2-23; ii. 22-27; iii. 11-18. They were first published
by Professor H. Hagen under the title 'Ein Italafragment aus einem
Berner Palimpsest des VI. Jahrhunderts ' in Hilgenfeld's ' Zeitschrift fiir
wissenschaftliche Theologie,' vol. xxvii. p. 470 ff. (Leipzig, 1884) ;
reprinted in Old Latin Bibl. Texts, vol. ii, with rather important
alterations in the conjectural restitution of the missing half-columns.

V. Feagmentum Vindobonbnsb [vii], at Vienna, where it is bound up
at the beginning of a volume numbered Lat. 602 and entitled ' Pactus
legis Ripuariae;' it contains John xix. 27 — xx. 11, but the writing is
much faded. Transcribed by the Bishop of Salisbury and the Rev.
H. J. White in 1887, and published in Old Latin Bibl. Texts, vol. iii.

aur. Codex Aureus or Holmiensis, in the Royal Library at Stock-
holm; Gospels [vii or viii], 195 leaves, complete with the exception of
one leaf, which contained Luke xxi. 8-30. According to an inscription
in Old English on the title-page, the book was purchased by Alfred the
Alderman from the pagans [Danes ?] when Alfred was king and Ethelred
archbishop (a.d. 871-89), for the use of Christ Church, Canterbury. It
afterwards found its way to Madrid, where Sparvenfeldt bought it in 1690
from the Library of the Marquis de Liohe. Edited, with facsimiles, by
Belsheim (Christiania, 1878), who classes it as Old Latin; but it is
really a Vulgate text, though with a certain admixture of Old Latin
readings. Hort's holm. (Introd., Notes, p. 5).

ffl^. Fbagmbnta Cukiensia [v or vi], formerly preserved amongst the
Episcopal archives at Chur or Coire, now placed in the R^itisches t^^
Museum of the same city. M. Batiffol was the first to suggest that
these fragments belonged to the same M S. as m ; and though this view
was combated at first by Mr. White, it was reasserted strongly by
Dr. Corssen (Gottin^sche gel. Anzeigen, 1889, p. 316), and further
examination has shown that it is correct. The fragments contain
Luke xi. 11-29; xiii. 16-34; they were first discovered by Professor
Hidber, of Berne, then described by Professor E. Ranke in the ' Theol.
Studien u. Kritiken,' 1872, pp. 505-520, and afterwards edited by him
in full, Curiensia Ev. Lucani Fragmenta Latiua (Vienna, 1874).

8. Codex Sangallensis, the interlinear Latin of Cod. A, stands
remarkable especially for its alternative renderings of the Greek, such
as 'uxorem uel coniugem' for riji/ ywaiKa Matt. i. 20, and in almost
every verse. How far the Latin text of these MSS. is independent, and
how far it is a mere reproduction of the Greek, or whether the Greek has
in turn been influenced by the Latin, is one of those elaborate and obscure
problems which are still very far from solution. The reader is referred
to Prof. J. Rendel Harris' work, The Codex Sangallensis (Cambridge,
1891), for an interesting discussion of these alternative readings.

In the Jets we have Codd. dm as in the Gospels; e the Latin
version of Cod. E (Laudianus) of the Acts, and also

g. Cod. Gigas Holmiensis [xiii], a Bohemian MS. of the whole N. T.,
now at Stockholm, so called from its great size. Contains the Acts and

£ 2,

52" LATIN VERSIONS.

Apocalypse in the Old Latin version, the rest of the N. T. in the Vulgate.
Mr. Belsheim published the Acts and Apocalypse in full and a collation
of the other books (Christinnia, 1878). His eilition was carefully-
revised for the Bishop of Salisbury by Dr. H. Karlsson in 1891.

g^. Feagmbntdm Mediolanbnsk [x or xi], from a lectionary; dis-
covered by Ceriani in the Ambrosian Library at Milan and published by •
him in 'Monumenta Sacra et Profana,' torn. i. fasc. ii. p. 127 (see also
preface, pp. vi and vii). Contains Acts vi. 8 — vii. 2; 51 — viii. 4; i.e.
lection for St. Stephen's day.

^, A h. Palimpsbstus Floeiacensis [vi or vii], now in the Bibl. Nat. at
^[fin Paris, where it forms foil. 113 to 130 of a volume containing various
treatises and numbered Lat. 6400 G ; it was formerly numbered 5367,
find was as such quoted by Sabatier, torn. iii. p. 507 ff., who had collated
the first three pages. An inscription on fol. 130 shows it to have belonged
in the eleventh century to the famous Benedictine Abbey of Fleury on
the Loire. Mr. A. Vansittart deciphered and published some more in the
'Journal of Philology' (vol. ii, 1869, p. 240, and vol. iv, 1872, p. 219),
and M. H. Omont published four pages of the Apocalypse in the ' Bibl. de
rjficole des ohartes' (vol. xliv. 1883, p. 445). Belsheim published an
edition of the fragments in 1887 ('Appendix Epist. Paulin. ex cod.
Sangerin.,' Christiauia) ; and finally M. Berger published a most careful
and complete edition in 1889 (Le Palimpseste de Fleury, Paris, Fisch-
bacher). The MS. contains fragments of the Apocalypse, the Acts,
I and 2 Peter, and i John ; in the order above mentioned. Of the
Acts in M. Berger's edition we obtain the following: — iii. 2 — iv. 18;
V. 23 — vii. 2; 42 — viii. 2 ; ix. 4-23; xiv. 5-23; xvii. 34 — xviii. 19;
xxiii. 8-24; xxvi. 20 — xxvii. 13. Facsimile given by Berger.

s. Cod. Bobiensis [v or vi], at Vienna, consisting of a number of
palimpsest leaves preserved loose and numbered Lat. 16 (see 'Tabulae
Codd. MSS. praeter graecos et orientales in bibl. Palatina Vindob.
asservatorum,' 1863-1875). They were brought with other MSS. to
Vienna from Naples in 1717, and formerly belonged to the famous
Monastery at Bobbio. Described by Denis (Codd. MSS. theolog. bibl.
Palat. Vindob., torn. ii. p. 1, col. 628) and later by von Eichenfeld
(Wiener Jahrb. der Literatur, 1824, Bd. xxvi. p. 20) ; then by Tischen-
dorf in the same periodical (1847, Bd. cxx. p. 36). Finally published in
full by Belsheim (Fragmenta Vindobonensia, Christiania, 1886), who
printed all the fragments of this veiy hard palimpsest which Tischendorf
had been able to decipher, and the leaves which he himself had been
able to make out in addition. We thus obtain Acts xxiii. 18-23; xxv.
23-27; xxvi. 22— xxvii. 7; 10-24; 28-31; xxviii. 16-28. The same
MS. also contains fragments of St. James and i Peter ; see below.

In the Catholic Epistles we have

ff. Codex Coebeibnsis [x], of the Epistle of St. JHmes, now in the
Imperial Library at St. Petersburg, where it was numbered Qv. i. 39.
Formerly belonging to the Corbey Library, where it was numbered 635,
it was about 1638 transferred to St. Germain des Pi'6s and was numbered
717 in Dom Poirier's catalogue (made about 1791); and finally was

OLD LATIN. 53

taken to St. Petersburg by Peter Dubrowsky about 1805 (see above on
ffx, p. 46). The Epistle was published in 1695 by Martianay in the
same volume which included ff^ ; later by Mr. Belsheim (Der Brief des
Jacobus, Christiania, 1883); and again, after revision by Professor
V, Jernstedt, by Bishop Wordsworth in ' Studia Biblica,' vol. i.

There are also h, containing i Pet. iv. 1 7 — 2 Pet. ii. 6 ; i John i.
8 — iii. 20 ; TO as in Gospels; s as in Acts, containing James i. 1-25;
ii. 14— iii. 5; 13— iv. 2; v. 19, 20; i Pet. i. 1-12 ; ii. 4-10.

q. One of the sets of fragments at Munich [vii], published by Ziegler
{see below) : they consist of two leaves, giving us i John iii. 8 — v. 21, and
containing the three Heavenly Witnesses (i John v. 7), placed, however,
after v. 8, as in the Vulgate Codex Gavends (see Ziegler, p. 5 f.) ; these
leaves are in the collection of fragmeuls marked Clm. 6436 (Fris. 236).
Later in the same year Ziegler published more fiagments from the
same MS., which had been used in covering some other books; these
give us I Pet. i. 8-19; ii. 20— iii. 7; iv. 10— v. 14; 2 Pet. i. 1-4.
See Sitzungsberichte der k. b. Akademie der "Wissenschaften zu
Miinchen, 1876, Heft v. pp. 607-660.

In the Pauline Epistles we have m as in the Gospels. Codd. defy
are the Latin versions of Codd. DEFG of St. Paul, described above,
Cod. D (Clarom.); Cod. E (Sangerm.); Cod. F (Aug.); Cod. G (Boern.).
To these must be added

gue. Cod. Gublfbebttanus [vi], fragments of Eom. xi. 33- — xii. 5 ;
17 — xiii. 5; xiv. 9-20; xv. 3-13, found in the great Gothic palimpsest
at WoUenbiittel (Evann. PQ), publislied with the other matter by Knittel
in 1762, and more fully by Tischendorf, Anecdota sacra et profana,
pp. 155-158. In the eighth edition of his N. T. he adds readings from
Eom. xiii. 3, 4, 6; i Tim. iv. 15.

r. CoD.FmsiNGENSis [v or vi], consisting of twenty-one leaves at Munich,
numbered Clm. 6436 (Fris. 236), and containing Rom. xiv. 10 — xv. 13 ;
I Cor. i. 1 — iii. 5; vi. 1 — vii. 7; xv. 14-43; xvi. 12 — 2 Cor. ii. 10;
iii. 17 — V. 1 ; vii. 10— viii. 12; ix. 10 — xi. 21 ; xii. 14— xiii. 10; Gal.
ii. 5— iii. 5 ; Eph. i. 16— ii. 16 ; Phil. i. 1-20; i Tim. i. 12— ii. 15; v.
18 — vi. 13 ; Hebr. vi. 6— vii. 5 ; 8 — viii. 1 ; ix. 27— xi. 7. Eight of these
leaves were examined by Tischendorf in 1856, who drew attention to
their importance in the ' Deutsche Zeitschr. f. christliche Wissenschaft
u. chr. Leben,' 1856, n. 8 ; he incorporated many of their variant readings
into his N. T., and intended to publish the fragments. They were pub-
lished by L, Ziegler with q and r^ (Italafragm. d. paulinischen Briefe,
Marburg, 1876) ; see E. Wolfflin, Freisinger Itala (S. B. of Munich Acad.
1893, Heft ii).

rj. A single leaf from Munich [vii], containing Phil. iv. 11-23;
I Thess. i. 1-10; published by Ziegler, see above; also numbered Clm.
6436 (Fris. 236).

r,. Cod. Gottvicensis [vi or vii], fragments of Eomans and Galatians,
from the Benedictine Abbey of Gottweig on the Danube, and consisting
of two leaves taken from the cover of another book. They are numbered
1. (9) foil. 23, 24 in the Library Catalogue, and contain Eom. v. 16 —

54 LATIN VERSIONS.

vi. 4; 6-19; Gal. iv. 6-19; 22— v. 2. Published by H. Roensch in
Hilgenfeld's Zeitschrift, vol. xxii (1879), pp. 224-238.

In the Apocalypse we have m of the Gospels and g of the Acts ; also
h of the Acts {see above), containing i. 1— ii. 1 ; viii. 7 — ix. 11; xi.
16 — xii. 14; xiv, 15 — xvi. 5 (Lachmann cites Primasius' version as h).

To these thirty-eight codices must be added extracts from
the Latin Fathers, of which the Latin interpreter of Irenaeus,
Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, Priscillian, and Primasius are
the most important for the history of the version. For Tertullian,
considerable labour will be saved to the student by the work of
H. Eoensch (Das neue Testament Tertullians, Leipzig, 1871), who
has arranged in order his quotations, direct and indirect; for
Cyprian, Hartel's excellent edition (vol. iii in the Vienna Corpus)
is marred by his having edited the Testimonia, which consist of
direct quotations from the Bible, arranged under various heads,
from a late and inferior MS. (see 0. L. Bibl. Texts, ii. p. xliii).
The works of Priscillian, who suffered death as a heretic in 385,
have been quite lately discovered and edited by Dr. G. Schepss
(vol. xviii in the Vieima Corpus) ; the quotations in them bear
a strong resemblance to those of the so-called 'Speculum' of
St. Augustine (m), and are mainly from the Epistles. Primasius,
bishop of Hadrumetum (d. 558 ?), was the author inter alia of
a commentary on the Apocalypse ; in this he incorporated nearly
the entire text of that book, and as this text agrees almost word
for word with the citations found in Cyprian's Testimonia, we
thus obtain a complete African text of a book in which so many
MSS. are defective. In addition to this he quoted largely from
another Latin translation of the Apocalypse — that of the Donatist
Ticonius — whose version seems to be a good specimen of a later
text approximating more closely to the Vulgate ; these have also
been published quite recently by Professor Haussleiter (Zahn's
Forschungen, iv. Teil, Leipzig, 1891).

When we come to arrange these authorities for the Latin
version before Jerome, we find a complicated and difficult task
before us ; for few of our MSS. present a consistent type of text.
We will confine ourselves therefore to grouping them in the three
great families described by Dr. Hort (Introd. p. 78), whose division
has been accepted by most textual critics, and to pointing out
how here and there even that division must be accepted with
some modification.

OLD LATIN. 55

The African family is comparatively easy to fix, from the
rich store of biblical quotations found in the African Fathers.
Tertullian indeed does not give us so much help as we should
have expected, as he seems to have largely used a Greek Bible
and translated it into Latin himself. Cyprian's quotations,
however, are valuable, as he apparently confined himself strictly
to the Latin Bible current in his time ; he may be taken as the
standard of the early African version ; to him we must add, for
the Gospels, the Bobbio MS. {k) and the Codex Palatinus (e), which,
however, represents a stage somewhat later than k ; for the Acts,
the Fleury palimpsest (h); for the Apocalypse, Primasius and h;
and a later and revised stage in the so-called 'Speculum' (m), and
in the quotations from Ticonius preserved in Primasius.

Existing simultaneously with the African family we find
another type of text current in Western Europe, though whether
it is a revision of the African text or is of independent origin,
it is hard to say. This type Dr. Hort calls the European. It is
represented in the Gospels by h, which may be taken as the
tj'pical European MS. ; by a in St. Matthew, i (Luke and Mark),
n and a.2 (giving us fragments of all the Gospels from the same
MS.) ; t in St. Mark ; in a slightly revised form by A of St. Matthew ;
in a form marked by special local characteristics, in the L-ish
MSS. r^ and p (St. John) ; to a certain extent also by q (i.e. in
its renderings, and turns of expression, as distinct from the type
of Greek text underlying it); of the early Fathers, the Latin
version of tenaeus may probably be referred to this family.

For the European text in the Acts, Dr. Hort cites the Gigas
Holmiensis {g), and the Milan Lectionary g^, and the Bobbio
fragments at Vienna (s); for the Epistles, the Corbey MS. of
St. James {ff), though this has possibly a tinge of Africanism in
it (see Bp. Wordsworth and Dr. Sanday in 'Studia Biblica,' i.
pp. 113, 233) ; and g again for the Apocalypse.

The Italian family presents us with a type of text mainly
European, but doubly revised ; first in its renderings, 'to give the
Latinity a smoother and more customary aspect,' and secondly
in its underlying text, which has been largely corrected from the
Greek ; in both these points the Italian MSS. are a sort of stepping-
stone between the European MSS. and Jerome's Vulgate ; and
as many of the Biblical quotations in Augustine's works agree
closely with them, it is distinctly probable that it was this

56 LATIN VERSIONS.

revision which he praised as the Itala. To this group we would
assign / in the Gospels, and less notably q ; in the Epistles the
Freisingen fragments q of St. John and St. Peter, and r r^ of
St. Paul's ' Epistles, and the Gottweig fragments r, of Komans
and Galatians.

But it will be seen that this arrangement leaves a large
number of MSS. unaccounted for ; many of the Old Latin MSS.
present texts which it is impossible to class either as African,
European, or Italian. Some of them possess all three charac-
teristics ; some have been half corrected from the Vulgate; and
local variation, independent translation from the Greek, and
in the case of the Graeco-Latin MSS., assimilation to the Greek,
have still further complicated matters. Among these mixed texts
must be placed a in SS. Mark, Luke, and John (with occasional
Africanisms, and a large element quite peculiar to itself) ; c,
which gives us a text very near the Vulgate in St. John;
d, that apparently insoluble problem ; ff^ and f^gisb; I, a text
which to a large extent is almost pure Vulgate, but which at the
same time preserves a number of readings, mostly interpolations,
that are quite peculiar.

We must bear in mind too that even the MSS. which seem to
represent most consistently one type of text, show here and there
strange vacillations ; e, African throughout as it seems at first
sight, must have been copied from an ordinary European MS. in
the last few chapters of St. Luke ; the parent MS. of r obviously
did not contain the pericope de adultera, for that passage has
been supplied in a Vulgate text ; and other instances might be
added.

(2) Jerome's revised Latin Version, commonly called
the Vulgate.

The extensive variations then existing between different copies
of the Old Latin version, and the obvious corruptions which had
crept into some of them, prompted Damasus, Bishop of Rome, in
A.D. 382, to commit the important task of a formal revision of
the New, and probably of the Old Testament, to Jerome, a
presbyter born at Stridon on the confines of Dalmatia and
Pannonia, probably a little earlier than a. d. 345. He had just
returned to Rome, where he had been educated, from his hermit-
age in Bethlehem, and in the early ripeness of his scholarship

THE VULGATE. 57

undertook a work for which he was specially qualified, and whose
delicate nature he well understood ^. Whatever prudence and
moderation could do in this case to remove objections or relieve
the scruples of the simple, were not neglected by Jerome, who
not only made as few changes as possible in the Old Latin when
correcting its text by the help of ' ancient ' Greek manuscripts ^,
but left untouched many words and forms of expression, and not
a few grammatical irregularities, which in a new translation (as
his own subsequent version of the Hebrew Scriptures makes
clear) he would most certainly have avoided. The four Gospels,
as they stand in the traditional Greek order without Western
variation, revised but not re-translated on this wise principle,
appeared in A. d. 384, accompanied with his celebrated Preface to
Damasus (' summus sacei'dos '), who died that same year. Not-
withstanding his other literary engagements, it is probable
enough that his recension of the whole New Testament for
public use was completed A. D. 385, though the proof alleged by
Mill (N. T., Proleg., § 862), and by others after his example, hardly
meets the case. In the next year (a.d. 386), in his Commentary
on Galat., Ephes., Titus, and Philem., he indulges in more freedom
of alteration as a translator than he had previously deemed
advisable; while his new version of the Old Testament from the
Hebrew (completed about A. D. 405) is not founded at all on the
Old Latin, which was made from the Greek Septuagint; the
Psalter excepted, which he executed at Rome at the same date,
and in the same spirit, as the Gospels. The boldness of his
attempt in regard to the Old Testament is that portion of his
labours which alone Augustine disapproved^ (August, ad

' ' Novum opus me facere cogia ex veteri : ut post exemplaria Soripturarum
toto orbe dispersa, quasi quidam arbiter sedeam : et quia inter se variant, quae
sint ilia quae cum Gi-aeca consentiant veritate, decemam. Pius labor, sed peri-
culosa praesumptio, judioare de ceteris, ipsum ab omnibus judicandum : senis
mutare linguam, et cauescentem jam mundum ad initia retrahere parvulorum.'
Praef. ad Damasum.

' ' [Evangelia] Codicum Graecorum emendata collatione, sed veterum, quae
ne multum a leotionis Latinae consuetudine discreparent, ita calamo tempera-
vimus, ut his tantum quae sensum videbantur mutare correctis, reliqua manere
pateremur ut fuerant.' Ibid. For a signal instance, see below, eh. ix, note on
Matt. xxi. 31.

' To his well-knovyn censure of Jerome's rendering of the Old Testament from
the Hebrevr, Augustine adds, ' Proinde non parvas Deo gratias agimus de opere
tuo, quod Evangelium ex Graeco interpretatus es : quia pene in omnibus nulla
offensio est, cum Scripturam Graecam contulerimus.'

58 LATIN VERSIONS.

BQeron. Ep. x. torn. ii. p. 18, Lugd. 1586, A.D. 403), and indeed
it was never received entire by the Western Church, which long
preferred his slight revision of the Old Latin, made at some
earlier period of his life. Gradually, however, Jerome's recension
of the whole Bible gained ground, as well through the growing
influence of the Church of Rome as from its own intrinsic merits :
so that when in course of time it came to take the place of the
older version, it also took its name of the Vulgate, or common
translation 1. Cassiodorus indeed, in the middle of the sixth
century, is said to have compared the new and old Latin (of the
New, perhaps of both Testaments) in parallel columns, which
thus became partially mixed in not a few codices : but Gregory
the Great (590-604), while confessing that his Church used both
(' quia sedes Apostolica, cui auctore Deo praesideo, utrS,que utitur,'
Epist. Dedic. ad Leandrum, c. 5), awarded so decided a preference
to Jerome's translation from the Hebrew, 'that this form of his
Old Testament version, not without some mixture with his
translation from the Septuagint (Walton, Polyglott, Prol. x.
pp. 242-244, Wrangham), and his Psalter and New Testament
as revised from the Old Latin, came at length to comprise the
Vulgate Bible, the only shape in which Holy Scripture was
accessible in Western Europe (except to a few scattered scholars)
during the long night of the Middle Ages.

But it was not a pure Vulgate text that was thus used ; the
old versions went on side by side with it for centuries, and even
when they were thus nominally superseded, fragments of them
found their way into probably all existing MSS. We have
ah-eady remarked (in eg &c.) how the same MS. will present
us with an Old Latin text in some books of the New Testament,
and with a Vulgate text in others; we shall note the same
phenomenon in other MSS., especially the British and Lrish (see
the MSS. numbered 51, 67, 78, 85, 87 below), which preserve on
the whole a pure Hieronymian text, but ai"e coloured here and
there from the earlier versions. Variation was still further-
increased by the apparently numerous local or provincial
recensions which were made, sometimes anonymously, some-

^ Eoger Bacon's writings , however, in the thirteenth century, are the first in
which Jerome's translation is cited as the ' Vulgate ' in the modern sense of the
term. See Denifle, Die Handsehriften der Bibel-correctorien des 13. Jahrhuu-
derts, 1883, p. 278.

THE VULGATE. 59

times under the editorship of famous men. Many of the Irish
MSS., for instance, seem to have been corrected immediately
from the Greek ; but the two most notable recensions of the
text came, not, as we might have expected, directly from Eome, but
from Gaul ; they are those of Alcuin and Theodulf in the ninth
century. That of Alcuin was undertaken at the desire of Charles
the Great i, who bade him (a. d. 797) review and correct certain
copies by the best Latin MSS. without reference to the original
Greek. Charles' motive was not so much critical as a wish to
obtain a standard Bible for church use, and consequently of simple
and intelligible Latin. Alcuin obtained bibles for this purpose
from his native Northumbria, the scene at the beginning of the
eighth century of an earlier recension of the text ; for it was to
their monasteries at Wearmouth and Jarrow (see below, p. 71)
that Benedict Biscop and Ceolfrid had brought the bibles and other
books collected in Kome and elsewhere during their journeys ;
and it was in Northumbria that the magnificent Anglian texts
(such as those numbered 29, 64, 82, 91, &c.) were written,
perpetuating the pure Vulgate text contained at that time in
the Roman MSS.^

At Christmas in 801, Alcuin presented Charles with a copy
of the revised Bible ^ ; specimens of this revision are to be found
in the MSS. numbered below, 5, 9, 25, 37, 117, and others.

About the same time, Theodulf, Bishop of Orleans (787-821),
undertook a similar revision, and not of a less scientific
character, but followed a different method. Theodulf, himself
a Visigoth and born near Narbonne, seems to have done little
more than introduce into France the Spanish type of MSS., which
was mixed, confused, full of interpolations, and of very slight
critical value * ; this however he corrected carefully and enriched
with a large number of marginal readings. This revision is
preserved for us in the Theodulfian Bible at Paris (no. 18 below),

'See Jaff^, Monumenta Carolina, p. 373, 'Jam pridem universes Veteris ao
Novl instrumenti libros . . . examussim correximus ; ' S. Berger's essay (to be
distinguished from his larger work), De I'histoire de la Vulgate en France
(1887), p. 3 f.

" See the Oxford ' Studia Biblica et Ecolesiastioa,' ii (1890), p. 278 f.

' Fritzsche, ' Latein. Bibelubersetzungen ' in Herzog, B. E." viii. p. 449 ; West-
cott, ' Vulgate,' in Smith's Bibl. Diet. iii. p. 1703 ; Kaulen, Geseh. d. Vulg.,
p. 229 f. ; P. Corssen, in ' Die Trierer Adahandschr.' (Leipzig, 1889), p. 31.

' Berger, as above, p. 7.

6o LATIN VERSIONS.

less correctly in its sister volume at Puy (no. 24), the Paris MS.
(no. 22 below), and partly also in the correction of the Bible of
St. Hubert (no. 6).

Two centuries later the text had again degenerated, and our
Primate Lanfranc (1069-89) attempted a similar task, perhaps
rather with a view to theology than textual criticism (' secundum
orthodoxam fidem studuit corrigere ') '. In 11 09 Stephen Harding,
third abbot of Citeaux, made a further revision, partly from good
Latin MSS., partly from the Greek, partly, in the Old Testament,
from the Hebrew, as he obtained help from some learned Jewish
scholars^. In 1150 his example was followed by Cardinal
Nicolaus Maniacoi-ia ^- As these individual efforts seemed to have
but slight success, the task was taken up in the thirteenth century
more fully and systematically by bodies of scholars, in the so-called
' Correctoria Bibliorum ;' here the variant readings with their
authorities, Greek, Latin, ancient, modern, and citations from the
Fathers, were carefully registered. The most noticeable examples
of these correctoria are (1) the ' Correctorium Parisiense' prepared
by the Paris theologians. EogerPacon had a poor opinion of the
work done by these students ; for some time the MSS. of the
Bible that were copied and bought and sold in Paris, he says,
were corrupt ; they were bad to begin with, and copied carelessly
by the booksellers and their scribes, while the theologians were
not learned enough to discover and amend the mistakes *. This
correctorium is also frequently, but according to Denifle (p. 284)
wrongly, called Senonense, as if it was undertaken at the instance
of the Bishop of Sens ; there is, however, no correctorium
Senonense, only the correctiones Senonenses, i. e. corrections
made in the Paris Correctorium by the Dominicans residing at
Sens ; (2) the ' Correctorium ' of the Dominicans, prepared under
the auspices of Hugo de S. Caro, about 1240, the final corrected

^ See the Life of Lanfranc, by Milo Crispinus, a monk of Bee, ch. xv, inMigne,
Patr. Lat. 150, col. 55, and his Commentary, ibid., col. 101 f. ; Mill, Prolog.,
§ 1058 ; Cave's remark (Hist. Lit. 1743, vol. ii. p. 148), ' Lanfraneus textum
continue emendat,' seems hardly borne out by the facts.

'' His corrected Bible in four vols, is now preserved at Dijon, public library,
9 bis, see below, p. 68, no. 8 ; also Denifle, Die Hdss. d. Bibel-correctorien des
13. Jahrh. 1883, p. 267 ; Kaulen, p. 245.

' His criticisms are preserved in a MS. at Venice (Marciana Lat. class, x.
cod. 178, fol. 141) ; see Denifle, p. 270, who prints them.

' See the quotations in Denifle, p. 277 f ., and Hody, p. 419 f.

THE VULGATE. 6l

form of which is now preserved at Paris, B.N. Lat. 16719-16722
{see below, p. 70, no. 23) ^ ; this, however, was again an attempt,
not so much to get at Jerome's actual text as, to bring
the Latin text into accordance with the Greek or Hebrew^;
(3) a better and more critical revision, the ' Gorrectorium
Vaticanum,' a good MS. of which is in the Vatican Library
(Lat. 3466); the author of this has done his best to restore
Jerome's reading throughout, althouffh well learned in Greek and
Hebrew ; and he has with some probability been identified by
Vercellone with a scholar much praised by Roger Bacon as
a ' sapientissimus homo,' who had spent nearly forty years in
the correction of the text ^ (Denifle suggests Wilh. de Mara).

These remedies, partial and temporary as they were, seemed
all that was possible before the invention of printing; and,
indeed, by an unfortunate chance, the worst of the three
correctoria, the ' Parisiense,' was made use of by Robert Stephen.

Among the earliest productions of the press, Latin Bibles took
a prominent position ; and during the first half-century of printing
at least 124 editions were published*. Of these perhaps the
finest is the earliest, the famous ' forty-two line ' -Bible, issued at
Mentz between 1452 and 1456, in two volumes, and usually
ascribed to Gutenberg ®. This is usually called the ' Mazarin
Bible,' from the copy which first attracted the notice of biblio-
graphers having been discovered in the Library of Cardinal
Mazarin ; in the New Testament, the order of books is Evv.,
Paul., Act., Oath., Apoc. Mr. Copinger enumerates twenty-five,
copies on vellum and paper as still known to exist ; there are two
in the British Museum. The first Bible published at Rome is dated
1471, and was printed by Conrad Sweynheym and Arnold
Pannartz, two vols., folio ; the first octavo edition, or ' poor man's

1 See S. Berger, De I'histoire de la Vulgate en France, p. 9 f., 1887, and Eevue
de Th6ol. et de Philos. de Lausanne, t. xvi. p. 41, 1883.

' See Hugo's remark (Denifle, p. 295), 'In multis libris maxime historialibus,
non utimur translatione Hieronymi.'

' See Vercellone, Diss. Acad., Eome, 1864, pp. 44-51 ; Hody,pp. 426-430 ; and
Denifle, pp. 295-298. This correctorium is cited in Wordsworth's Vulgate
as cor. vat. ; see Berger, Notitia Linguae Hebraicae etc., p. 32 (1893).

* See W. A. Copinger, Incunabula Bibliea, or the first half-century of the
Latin Bible, p. 3, London, 1892 ; and L. Delisle, Journ. des Savants, Apr. 1893.

* Or to Peter Schoefier, see J. H. Hessels, in the Academy, June, 1887, p. 396 ;
August, p. 104 ; or to Johann Fust. See the British Museum ' Catalogue of Printed
Books,' Bible, part i. col. 16.

0-

62 LATIN VERSIONS.

Bible,' was printed at Basle in 1491 by Froben. The early-
editions, however, reproduced the current mediaeval type of text,
or copied from each other, the only exceptions being those
printed by Froben, whose copies, says Mr. Copinger, were sought
after, for their accuracy, by the best scholars in Europe, and
whose edition of 1502 with the 'glossa ordinaria' sometimes
stands quite alone in possessing the true reading. The first
edition with a collection of various readings appears to be one
published at Paris in 1504^, followed by others at Venice and
Lyons in 1511, 1513; and a definite revision of the text was
attempted by Cardinal Xiraenes, in the famous Complutensian
Polyglott (1514, &c. ; see Chap. V)^, in which he made use of
^ the Bible of Alcala (see below, no. 42) ; but though an advance
)• ' was made on previous editions, the text was still far from pure.
Erasmus, in his famous edition of the Greek Testament, appended
a Latin translation ; this he made himself directly from the Greek,
but in his notes he discusses the current Vulgate text and gives
readings from MSS. which he had examined ; of these he mentions
those at the Royal Library at Mechlin, St. Paul's Cathedral,
London, Corsendonk Austin Priory, Constance Cathedral, St.
Donatian (Abbaye des Dunes) of Bruges ; of these the first and
third only can be now identified, see below, pp. 84, 81, nos.*
134, 109. The first edition of a really critical nature was that
of Robert Stephen, in 1528 ; for this he used three good MSS.,
the Exemplar 8. Germani parvum (Par. lat. 11937), the Corbey
Bible (Par. lat. 11532-3), and the Bible of St. Denis (Par. lat. 2) ;
see below, nos. 22, 20, 10 ; and he published a more important
edition in 1538^0 (reprinted 1546), in which he made use of
seventeen MSS., of which the following *, numbered 19, 21, 22,
100 below, have been identified. This edition is practically the
foundation of the Modern Vulgate, and is cited by Wordsworth
as T. Later, John Hentenius, in his folio edition of the Bible,
(Louvain, 1547, and often reprinted ; cited by Wordsworth as ?i?)
seems to have used about thirty-one MSS. and two printed
copies ; but as no various readings are cited from individual

' Westcott, Vulgate, p. 1704. This seems to be that of 'Thielman Kerver,
impensis J. Parvi,' with emendations of A. Castellani.

'' The British Museum possesses a copy (840. d. 1) ; see the ' Catalogue,' part i.
col. 1.

' For details see ' Old Lat. Bibl. Texts,' i. p. 51 f.

• Ibid., p. 48 f.

THE VULGATE. 63

MSS., they cannot well be identified ; see his preface. Lucas
Brugensis (see his catalogue at the end of the Hentenian
Bible of 1583, p. 6) also gives a long list of MSS., which seem
impossible to be identified^, and we must also bear in mind
the corrected editions published by Th. Vivian (Paris), and Junta
(Venice), 1534 (both are small copies of the New Testament,
corrected occasionally from the Greek), Isidore Clarius (Venice,
1542), J. Benedictus (Paris, 1558), Paul Eber (1565), and Luke
Osiander (1578).

When the Council of Trent met, the duty of providing for the
members of the Church of Rome the most correct recension of
the Latin Bible that skill and diligence could produce was
obviously incumbent on it ; and in one of its earliest sittings
(April 8, 1546) the famous decree was passed, ordaining that of
the many published editions of the Holy Scripture ' haec ipsa
vetus et vulgata editio, quae longo tot saeculorum usu in ipsa
ecclesia probata est ' should be chosen, and ' in publicis lectionibus,
disputationibus, praedicationibus, et expositionibus pro authen-
tica habeatur ' (Sess. iv. Deer. 2) ; and directing that ' posthac
sacra Scriptura, potissimum vero haec ipsa vetus et vulgata
editio quam emendatissime imprimatur.' No immediate action,
however, was taken in the matter, and for forty years the
editions were still printed and published by private scholars;
the Hentenian, for the time being, becoming almost the standard
text of the Roman Catholic Church.

Pope Pius IV had indeed begun the task of correcting the
Vulgate Bible, but without immediate result, and under his
successors the matter still rested, till the accession of Sixtus V
(1585-90) ^, a Pope as energetic in his labours on the Holy

' The critical notes of Lucas Brugensis himself appear to be found in three
forms : —

(1) The ' Notationes,' published in 1580, and incorporated in the Hentenian
Bible of 1583.

(2) The 'Variae Lectiones,' printed in Walton's Polyglott, and taken from
the Louvain Bible of 1584. These are simply a list of various readings to the
Vulgate, with MS. authorities ; he frequently adds the letters Q. ST., i. e.
' quaere notationes,' where he has treated the subject more fully in (1).

(3) The 'Notae ad Varias Lectiones,' also printed (for the Gospels') in Walton's
Polyglott ; a delectus of them is given in Sabatier at the end of each book of the
New Testament, under the title 'Eoman. Correctionum auctore Fr. L. Br.
delectus.'

' See E. Nestle, Ein Jubilaum der lateinischen Bibel, Tubingen, p. 13 f., 1892.

64 LATIN VERSIONS.

Scripture as in other spheres of activity. He appointed a
commission on the subject, under the presidency of Cardinal
Carafa ; and after they had presented the Pope with the result
of their work, in the beginning of 1589, he devoted himself
personally to the study, reading through the whole Bible more
than once, and using his best endeavours to bring it to the
highest pitch of accuracy. The result of this appeared in a folio
edition of the Bible in three volumes, in 1590 \ accompanied by a
Bull, in which, after relating the extreme care that had been taken
in preparing the volume, Sixtus V declared that it was to be
considered as the authentic edition recommended by the Council
of Trent, that it should be taken as the standard of all future
reprints, and that all copies should be corrected by it. The
edition itself (cited by Wordsworth as S) was not without faults,
and indeed received a good number of corrections by hand after
the proofs were printed off; it presents a text more nearly
resembling that of Kobt. Stephen than that of John Hentenius.
In a few months, however, Sixtus was dead ; a number of short-
lived Popes succeeded him, and in Jan. 1592, Clement VIII
ascended the throne. Almost immediately he gave orders for the
copies of the Sixtine Vulgate to be called in ; it has been hitherto
supposed simply on account of its inaccuracy, but Professor Nestle
(pp. 17 ff.) argues reasonably enough that this ground is insuffi-
cient, and suggests that the revocation was really due to the
influence of the Jesuits, whom Sixtus had offended by placing
one of Bellarmine's books on the Index Librorum prohibitoruvi.
Be that as it may, in the same year the Clementine edition of
the Vulgate (Wordsworth's ffi) was published, differing from the
Sixtine in many places, and presenting a type of text more nearly
allied to Hentenius' Bible. To avoid the appearance of a conflict
between the two Popes, the Clementine Bible was boldly published
under the name of Sixtus, with a preface by Bellarmine asserting
that Sixtus had intended to bring out a new edition in conse-
quence of errors that had occurred in the printing of the first,
but had been prevented by death ; now, in accordance with his
desire, the work was completed by his successor. The oppor-
tunity, however, was too good a one for 'Protestants to miss, and
Thomas James in his ' Bellum Papale sive Concordia discors '

1 There is a copy in the British Museum, Q. e. 5. It is praetioally in one
volume, as the paging is continuous throughout.

THE VULGATE. 65

(London, 1600), upbraids the two Popes on their high pretensions
and the palpable failure of at least one, possibly both of them ^

From this time forward the Clementine Vulgate (sometimes
under the name of Clement, sometimes under that of Sixtus,
sometimes under both names) ^ has been the standard edition for
the Roman Church ; by the Bull of 1592, every edition must be
assimilated to this one, no word of the text may be altered, nor
even variant readings printed in the margin ^.

Thus the modern attempts at a scientific and critical revision
of this version have come from students mainly outside the
communion of the Roman Church.

The design of Bentley for a critical Greek Testament is
described below (Chap. V) ; it was obvious that for its prosecu-
tion the MSS. of the Vulgate would have to be collated as
carefully as those of the Greek text itself ; and accordingly the
variant readings of a good number were collected by Bentley
himself, nos. 3, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72,
74, 75, 76, T1, 82, 83, 85, 155, 160 ; other MSS. were collated by
his friend and colleague John Walker, who worked much at
Paris in 1719 and the following years ; to him we owe collations
of nos. 10, 11, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 52, 96, 97, 102, 151, 164, while
he obtained collations of the Tours MSS. (nos. 106, 107, 108, 166)
from L. Chevalier, through their common friend Sabatier ; and
of the Oxford MSS. (nos. 86, 87, 89, 90, 148, 161), from David
Casley. Walker died, however, in November, 1741, six months
before the great Bentley, and the projected edition came to
naught*. Their collations have not been published, but are
contained in the following volumes, in the Library of Trinity
College, Cambridge : B. 17. 5 containing collations by Walker,
Chevalier, Casley, and Bentley ; and B. 17. 15 containing colla-

' He gives a long list of the variations between the Sixtine and Clementine
Bibles ; Vercellone estimated their number at 3,000. It is to be noticed that
the versing of the Sixtine ed. differs considerably from the Clementine as well as
from Stephen. ,

' The regular form of title, ' Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis SixtiV Pont. Max. <^^^ ^
jussu recognita et dementis VIII auctoritate edita,' does not appear in any
edition known to the writer before that of Kouille, Lyons, 1604. See Brit. Mus.
Catalogue, col. 50. The earliest edition with this title known to Masoh (Le Long,
Bibl. Sacra, 1783, ii. p. 251) is dated 1609 ; and Vercellone (Variae Lect. i. p. Ixxii)
names others considerably later as the earliest.

^ See Old Lat. Bibl. Texts, i. p. xvi.

♦ Ibid., p. XXV.

VOL, II. F

/"f/

66 LATIN VERSIONS.

tions by Bentley ; and they have been made use of by Bishop
Words-worth in his edition of the Vulgate ^.

Two attempts are being made now to restore the text of St.
Jerome : that of Dr. Peter Corssen, of Berlin, and the Oxford
edition under the hands of the Bishop of Salisbury. Dr. Corssen's
published results at present consist only of the Epistle to the
Galatians (' Epistula ad Galatas,' Berlin, Weidmann, 1885), but he
has been spending several years in the accumulation of material,
and other books of the New Testament will probably be published
before very long. The Bishop of Salisbury after nearly eleven
years' preparation, in conjunction with the Kev. H. J. White and
other friends, published the first volume of his edition, containing
St. Matthew's Gospel, in 1889 ; St. Mark following in 1891, and
St. Luke in 1892 ; and it is hoped that the rest of the New
Testament may be published in due course. More than thirty
MSS., those numbered 5, 6, 18, 21, 28, 29, 37, 41, 51, 56, 64, 67,
68, 72, 11, 78, 82, 85, 86, 87, 91, 97, 98, 106, 115, 128, 129, 130,
132, 147, 148, 153, 154, 159, 175 below, have been carefuUy
collated thi-oughout for this edition, and a large number of others
are cited in all the important passages, besides correctoria, and
the more noticeable of the earlier printed Bibles.

To enumerate all the known MSS. of the Old Latin version
was an easy task ; to enumerate those of the Vulgate is almost
impossible. It is computed that there are at least 8,000 scattered
throughout the various Libraries of Europe, and M. Samuel
Berger, the greatest living authority on the subject, has examined
more than 800 in Paris alone. Nor would an exhaustive
enumeration be of much critical value, as a large number of
comparatively late MSS. probably contain the same corrupt type
of text.

In the following list it is hoped that most of the really impor-
tant MSS. are included ; the writer has had the unwearied and
invaluable aid of M. Samuel Berger ^, besides that of many other
kind friends, in its compilation. It has been thought best to
arrange the MSS. on a double system ; first according to their
contents : — A. Bibles, whole or incomplete; B. New Testament;

^ See Fase. i. p. xv, and Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, Cambridge, 1862.

^ M. Berger, with exceptional kindness, allowed me to see the proof-sheets of
his ' History of the Vulgate ' as they were printed, and to add a large number
of MSS. to this list from that source.

THE VULGATE. 67

C. Gospels; D. Acts and onwards ; E. Epistles and Apocalypse;
and secondly under each of these heads, A-E, according to
countries (alphabetically) : — Austria, British Isles, France,
Germany, Holland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United
States.

For other lists the student is referred to Le Long, Bibliotheca
Sacra, ed. 1723, vol. i. p. 235 ; VerceUone, Variae Lectiones, Eomae,
1860, vol. i. p. Ixxxiii f., ii. p. xvii f. ; Berger, p. 374 f. ; and for
a fuller treatment of the history and text of the Vulgate, to
Bishop Westcott's article ' Vulgate ' in Smith's Bible Dictionary ;
Kaulen,Geschichte d.Vulgata, Mainz, 1865 ; Fritzsche, 'Lateinische
Bibeliibersetzungen ' in Herzog, Eealencyclopadie, second ed.,
vol. viii ; P. Corssen in Die Trierer Adahandschr., Leipzig, 1889 ;
and the important work of S. Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate
pendant les premiers sifecles du moyen kge, Paris, 1893 ; to
economize space, this will be quoted below simply as ' Berger.'

After the list of MSS. are added indices of the various notations
by which respectively Bentley, Tischendorf, Wordsworth, &c.,
have cited them.

A. Bibles.
a. Austria: Vienna.

1. Imperial Library, Lat. 1190. Bible [early ix], probably copied in
the Abbey of St. Vedast at Arras, during the time of the Abbot Eado
(795-815); Alcuinian poems. See M. Denis' Catalogue, i. p. 167, and
Berger, p. 108 f.

b. British Isles : British Museum.

2. Reg. I. B. xii. Bible [xiii], written in 1254 by William of Hales
for Thomas de la Wile, ' Magister Scolarum Sarum.' Cited by Bishop
Wordsworth as W, and incorporated by him into his apparatus criticus
as furnishing a fair specimen of the current mediaeval text.

3. Reg. I. E. vii, viii. Bible [x], in two large folio volumes, the first
few pages of each volume, and the last pages of the second, being supplied
in a twelfth-century hand ; contains stichometry to several of the books,
both in the Old and in the New Testaments ; order of New Test., Ev., Act.,
Cath., Paul. (Laod. after Hebr.), Apoc. ; Bentley's R.

4. Harl. 4772, 4773. Bible [xiii], in 2 vols., formerly belonging to
the Capucin Monastery of Montpellier ; the second volume appears to he
somewhat later than the first. The MS. both in handwriting and text
seems to come from the south of France. See Berger, p. 76.

5. Addit. 10,546. The noble Alcuinian Bible [ix], known usually as
' Charlemagne's ' Bible, or the Bible of Grandval (near Basle) ; became
the property of the British Museum in 1836. Probably written about the
time of Charles the Bald ; a good specimen of the Alcuinian revision ; see

P 2

68 LATIN VERSIONS.

the Museum Catalogue, i pi. 42, 43, and Westwood, Pal. Sacra Pict.,p. 25.
Wordsworth's K ; collated by the Revs. G. M. Youngman and H. J. White.

6. Addit. 24,142. Bible [ix], foimerlj' belonging to the Monastery of
St. Hubert in the Ardennes ; written in small minuscule hand, strongly
resembling that of the Theodulfian Bible {see below, no. 18), three
columns to a page; contains Old Test., and in New Test. Ev., Paul.,
Cath., as far as i Pet. iv. 3. Facsimile in ' Catalogue of Anc. MSS. in
the B. M.' p. 5, pi. 45. Wordsworth's H.

7. Addit. 28,107. The second volume of a Bible in large folio [dated
1097], 240 leaves, from St. Eemacle's at Stavelot, near Lifege ; with
peculiar capitula, and a stichometry. See Lightfoot, Journal of Philo-
logy, vol. iii. no. 6, p. 197 f. ; Facsimile in Palaeogr. Soo. ii. pi. 92, 93.

c. France : Dijon.

8. Public Library, 9 bis. Bible, 4 vols, [xii], corrected throughout
by Stephen Harding, third abbot of Citeaux ; see above, p. 60.

^ ilil'^Faris.

9. B. N. Lat. 1, formerly(35,612) Bible [middle ix], 423 leaves, foL,
50 X 38 cent., minuscule. TTiis splendid MS., with pictures and initials,
was presented to Charles the Bald by Vivian, abbot of St. Martin of
Tours, and was for a long time in the Cathedral treasury at Metz ; it was
given by the Chapter of Metz to Colbert in 1675. See Delisle, Cab. des
MSS., iii. p. 234 ff. ; Berger, p. 215 f. ; Le Long, i. p. 237. Alcuinian text.

1 0. B. N. Lat. 2, formerly 3561 (not, as Le Long and Walker say, 3562).
The Bible of St. Denis or of Charles the Bald [ix], 444 leaves, fol.,
minuscule, with fine initial letters, contains verses in praise of Charles
the Bald ; in the N. T. the Apoc. is wanting. See 0. L. Bibl. T., i. p. 55 ;
Delisle, Cab. des MSS., i. p. 200, and pi. xxviii. 1, 4, 5 ; Les Bibles de
Theodulfe, p. 7 ; De Bastard, c-civ ; Jorand, Grammatogr. du ix^ sifecle,
Paris, 1837 ; Silvestre, Pal. Univ., clxxi; Berger, p. 287 f. Walker's e;
used previously by R. Stephen in his Bible of 1528.

11. Lat. 3, formerly Eeg. 3562. Bible [middle ix], fol., thick minus-
cule ; parts of the Apoc. have been supplied by a later hand. Belonged
first to the Monastery of Glanfeuil, then to the Abbey of St. Maur des
Fosses near Charenton, the library of which was acquired by the St. Ger-
main Abbey in 1716; a good specimen of the Alcuinian revision. See
Delisle, Cab. des MSS., pi. xxv. 1, 2, xxix. 4 ; Berger, p. 213 f. Walker's tj.

12. Lat. 4, formerly Colbert 157, 158, then Reg. 3571^'-^' ; 2 vols.,
fol., 53-5 X 33 cent, [ix or x] ; 4^ contains 193 leaves, with Psalms, Ev.,
Act., Cath., Apoc, Paul. This MS. was given to Colbert by the Canons of
Puy, and called ' Codex Aniciensis.' The first hand presents an Alcuinian
text, but a second hand has added a large number of remarkable variant
leadings, especially in the Acts and Cath. Epp. It appears to belong to
Languedoc. See Berger, p. 73.

13. Lat. 6. Bible in 4 vols, [x], fol., 48 x 33-5 cent., from the Abbey
of Rosas in Catalonia. The fourth volume (6') contains the New Test.,

THE VULGATE. 69

(113 f.) in following order, Ev., Act., Cath., Paul. (Laod. between Col.
and Thegs.), Apoc. Valuable text, tbe first hand contains a large
number of interesting and Old Latin readings ; and in the Acts, the
second hand has added a number of Old Latin variants in the margin.
From the Noailles Library ; see Berger, p. 24.

14. Lat. 7, formerly Eeg. 3567, one of Card. Mazarin's MSS. Bible,
fol., 51 X 34-5 cent, [xi probably], with fine illuminations; order of
books in New Test., Ev., Act., Cath., Paul., Apoc. Interesting text in
the Acts, and strongly resembling the second hand of Lat. i', this MS.
was also probably written in Languedoc. Facsimile in De Bastard.
/See Berger, p. 73.

15. Lat. 45 and 93, formerly Eeg. 3563-4. Bible [late ix], fol., thick
minuscule ; no. 93 has 261 leaves, the New Test. (Ev., Act., Cath.,
Paul., Apoc), commencing on fol. 156. This MS. belonged originally to
the Monastery of St. Riquier on the Somme ; interesting text, especially
in the Acts and Cath. Epp. Walker's 6. Berger, p. 96 f.

16. Lat. 47, formerly Reg. 3564* (Faurianus 32, i.e. in the library of
Antoine Faure). Part of a Bible [xi], fol., 176 leaves minuscule; closely
resembling no. 11 (Lat. 3) in text and perhaps even more valuable;
much mut. in N. T. Walker's k.

17. Lat. 140. Bible [xv], written in Germany, and bearing the name
and arms of a Tyrolese, Joachim Schiller ab Herdern. Order of books in
the New Test., Ev., Paul., Apoc, Cath., Act. Interesting text, especially
in the Acts, where it is more or less mixed ; examined by S. Berger.

18. Lat. 9380. Bible [ix], in beautiful and minute minuscule. The
famous Theodulfian Bible, formerly belonging to the Cathedral of Orleans,
bnd bearing such a strong resemblance to the other Theodulfian Codex at
Puy (see below, no. 24), that M. Delisle declares many pages look almost
^ike proofs struck from the same type. It bears a strong resemblance
also to the St. Hubert Bible (Brit. Mus. Add. 24,142, see no. 6), though
Jt is written in a smaller hand ; the Hubert text has been throughout
assimilated to this. See Berger, p. 149 f. ; Delisle, Cab. des MSS., pi. xxi.
3, and Les Bibles de TWodulfe, Paris, 1879. Wordsworth's ; collated
by Eevs. C. "Wordsworth and H. J. White.

19. Lat. 11,504-5, formerly St. Germain 3, 4, afterwards 16, 17.
Bible [ix], fol., 199 and 215 leaves, minuscule; dated 822. New Test,
contains Ev., Act., Eom., i and 2 Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col., i and 2
Thess., I Tim. ; then a lacuna ; Apoc, Cath. See 0. L. B. T., i. p. 57 ;
Del., Cab. des MSS., pi. xxiv; Berger, p. 93. Walker's o^; he collated
Act., Cath., Paul., Apoc.

20. Lat. 11,532, 11,533, formerly at Corbey, afterwards St. Germain
1, 2, then 14, 15; 2 vols. Bible [ix], fol., minuscules ; probably written
after 855 A. d., the year of the accession of Lothair II, who is mentioned
in an inscription at the end of the book. Order of books in the New
Test., Ev., Act., Cath., Paul., Apoc. Walker's v ; lie collated Act., Cath.,
Paul., Apoc, not Ev. ; see Wordsworth, O. L. B. T., i. p. 57 ; Berger,
p. 104 f.

21. Lat. 11,553, described above (p. 47) as g^ Old Latin text in

70 LATIN VERSIONS.

St. Matthew; in the rest of the New Test, a Vulgate text, but with
strong admixture of Old Latin elements. Order of books in New Test.,
Ev., Act., Cath., Apoc., Paul. Wordsworth's G, Walker's m; ««e also
Berger, p. 65 ff.

22. Lat. 11,937, formerly St. Germain 9, then 645. First volume of
Bible [ix], 4to, 179 leaves, containing the Old Test., but incomplete.
This MS. was the 'Germ, parv.' of R. Stephen, who cites it also in
Matt, v-viii ; the volume, however, containing the New Testament has
since disappeared. See Delisle, Les Bibles de Th6odulfe, p. 28.

23. Lat. 16,719-16,722. Bible [xiii], in .4 vols., corrected throughout
by the Dominicans under the auspices of Hugo de St. Caro, see above,
p. 60, often called the Bible of St. Hugo de St. Caro.

Buy.

24. Cathedral Library. The famous Bible [viii or ix], written under
the direction of Theodulf, Bishop of Orleans, and closely resembling the
Paris Codex B. N. Lat. 9380, though not of equal critical value {see
above, p. 69, no. 18). Described by Delisle, Les Bibles de Th6odulfe ;
see also Le Long, i. p. 235 ; Berger, p. 171 f.

d. Germany : Bamberg.

25. Eoyal Library, A. I. 5. Bible [ix], large folio, 423 leaves. One
of the finest examples of the Alcuinian recension, and a typical specimen
of the second period of Caroline writing and ornamentation. Written in
the monastery of St. Martin at Tours. Apocalypse wanting. See Leit-
schuh, Fiihrer durch d. kgl. Bibl. zu Bamberg, 1889, p. 82. Wordsworth's
Bg in Acts &c, ; collated by the Eev. H. J. White.

Metz.

26. Public Library, no. 7. Second half of Bible [early ix], minuscule.
Mixed text, with Languedocian and Irish characteristics. See Berger,
p. 100.

Wurzhu/rg^.

27. Mp. th. fol. max. 1. Bible [xi], 403 leaves, large folio, formerly
belonging to the Cathedral Library. Contains the whole Bible except
Pauline Epp. and Book of Baruch, which, together with the Epistle to
the Laodiceans, have been abstracted.

e. Italy: La Cava.

28. Corpo di Cava (near Salerno) ; Benedictine Abbey. The well-
known ' Codex Cavensis ' of the whole Bible [prob. ix], written in Spain,
probably in Castile or Leon, in small, round Visigothic minuscules, by
a scribe Danila ; a copy was made by the Abbate de Rossi early in this
century, and is now in the Vatican (Lat. 8484). A good representative
of the Spanish type of text, and closely resembling the Codex Toletanus
(no. 41). See Dom Bernardo Gaetani de Aragona, Cod. diplomat.

^ For theWurzl)urgMSS.,seeG. Sctepps, Die altesten Evangelienhandschriften
der TTniversitatsbibliothek, Wurzburg, 1887, from which these descriptions are
mainly taken.

THE VULGATE. 7I

Cavensis, vol. i, Naples, 1873; Silvestre, Pal. univ., iii; L. Ziegler,
Sitzungsber. der k. bayr. Akad. der Wissenschaften phil. phil. Klasse,
Munich, 1876, p. 655 f . ; Pertz, Arcliiv, v. p. 542. Collated by
Bisbop "Wordsworth. Tischendorf s cav., Wordsworth's C.

Florence.

29. Laurentian Library. The far-famed Codex Amiatinus of the
whole Bible [end of vii or beginning of viii], 1029 leaves, large folio.
Till lately it was supposed to have been written by a sixth century scribe
in Italy ; but now, principally through the acuteness of G. B. de Eossi
and the late Professor Hort, it has been proved that it was written by the
order of the abbot Ceolfrid either at Wearmouth or Jarrow, and sent by
him as a present to the Pope at Eome in 715 A. d. . Afterwards placed
in the Monastic Library at Monte Amiata, whence it was again sent to
Eome for collation at the time of the Sixtine revision {see p. 64). The
New Testament was badly edited by F. F. Fleck, 1840 ; carefully, though
not without a few slips, by Tischendorf in 1850 (second ed. with some
emendations 1854); and by Tregelles in his Greek New Test. 1857.
Facsimiles in Zangemeister and Wattenb., Exemplacodd. lat., pi. 35, and
Palaeogr. Soc. ii. pi. 65, 66. Of the recent literature on this MS., and
especially on the first quaternion, with its lists of the books of the
Bible closely resembling those of Cassiodorus, see G. B. de Eossi, La
Biblia offerta da Ceolfr. Abb. al Sepolcro di S. Pietro, Eome, 1887;
H. J. White, The Codex Amiatinus and its Birthplace, in ' Studia
Biblica,' ii. p. 273 (Oxford, 1890) ; P. Corssen, Die Bibeln des Cassio-
dorus und der Cod. Amiatinus, in the ' Jahrb. f prot. Theologie,' 1883
and 1891 ; Th. Zahn, Gesch. d. ntl. Kanons, ii. p. 267 f. Tischendorf s
am., Wordsworth's A.

Milan.

30. Ambrosian Library, E. 26 inf. Part of a Bible [ix or x], com-
mencing with Chron. and finishing with Pauline Epp. Probably written
at Bobbio. Mixed text, especially interesting in St. Paul's Epp. ; does
not contain the last three verses of Eomans ; see Berger, p. 138.

31. E. 53 inf. Bible [ix or x], much mutilated ; 169 leaves, containing
the sacred books in the following order : Octateuch, Jerem., Acts, Cath.,
Apoc, Kings, Solomon, Job, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Esdras, Maccabees,
Ezek., Dan., minor prophets, Isa., Pauline Epp. ; i. e. the order in which
they are read in ecclesiastical lessons during the year. Formerly at
Biasca, a village in the valley of Tessin on the St. Gothard. Vulgate text,
but mixed with Old Latin elements ; interesting as containing not only
the Ep. to the Laodiceans but also the apocryphal correspondence
between St. Paul and the Corinthians (cp. the Laon MS., no. 161). See
Carrifere and Berger, La correspondance apocr. de St. Paul et des
Corinthiens, Paris, 1891.

Monte Cassino.

32. Monastery of Monte Cassino : codd. 552 and 557 are mentioned
by Corssen (Ep. ad Galatas, Berlin, 1885, p. 15) as worthy of note:
652 Bible [xi], 557 Bible [xii-xiii], but both containing an ancient

72 LATIN VERSIONS.

text. Order of books in both is Ev., Act., Cath., Apoc, Paul. (Ev.
lacking in-652). See aho ' Bibliotlieca Casinensis,' ii. pp. 313-352.

Monza.

33. Collegiate Archives, G. 1. Bible [ix], written at Tours by the
scribe Amalricus, who was Archbishop of Tours: specimen of the
Alcuinian recension and resembling in text and in outward appearance
and writing the Parisian Bible, B. N. Lat. 3 (no. 1 1 above). See Corssen,
Epist. ad Galatas, p. 10; Berger, p. 221.

Bome.

34. Vat. Lat. 5729, Codex Farfensis. Bible [xi], in one enormous
volume ; in good preservation, written in thiee columns. See Vercellone,
Var. Lect,, ii. p. xvii, and Le Long, i. p. 235 ; the latter wrongly cites it
as 6729.

35. Bible of S. Maria ad Martyres (La Eotonda, Pantheon). Bible
[x], lar^e folio. The books in the New Test, are in the following order :
Ev., Act., Cath., Apoc, Paul. ; used by Vercellone.

36. The splendid Bible [ix] preserved in the Library of ' S. Paul with-
out the walls ; ' belonged to Charles the Bald, and preserves an Alcuinian
text, strongly resembling V. See Vercellone, Var. Lect., i. p. Ixxxv;
Le Long, i. p. 237 ; Berger, p. 292.

37. Vallicellian Library, B. vi. Bible [ix], 347 leaves, large 4to,
Caroline minuscules. The Church of Sta. Maria in Vallicella belongs to
the Oratorian Fathers, andBianchini himself was an Oratorian; he refers
to this MS. in the ' Evang. Quadr.,' ii. pi. viii. p. 600, and it is probably
the best extant specimen of the Alcuinian revision. Bp. Wordsworth
collated it, and cites it as V; see also Berger, p. 197.

f. Siiain : Leon.

38. Cathedral Library, 16. Fragments of Bible [vii], palimpsest;
40 leaves, semi-uncial, under some writing in a Visigothic hand of the
tenth century. Contains in New Test, portions of Acts, 2 Cor., Col.,
and I John. Vulgate base but with Old Latin elements, especially in
I John. Discovered by Dr. Eudolf Beer, who is pioposing to publish
the fragments. See Berger, p. 8.

39. Cathedral Library, 6. Second volume of a Bible [x], formerly
belonging to the Convent of SS. Cosmas and Damian in the Valle de
Torio, and thought to date from the time of Ordogno II (913-923);
written by two scribes, Vimaia, a presbyter, and John, a deacon ;
minuscule, like Cavensis, only larger. Order of books in the New Test,
is Ev. (followed by a commentary), Act., Paul, (including Laod.), Cath.,'
Apoc. ; examined by Bp. Wordsworth in 1882. See Berger, p. 17.

40. Church of San Isidro ; Codex Gothicus Legionensis. Bible [x],
folio, dated 998 of the Spanisii era, i.e. 960 a.d. ; minuscule of the same
type as Cavensis, only larger. Order of books in the New Test. : Ev.
Paul., Cath., Act., Apoc. Written ' a notario Sanction! presbitero ' and
was collated on behalf of the Sixtine revision of the Vulgate for Card.

THE VULGATE. 73

Carafa, and by Mm called the Codex Gothicus ; this collation is pre-
served in the Vatican, Lat. 4859. Examined by Bp. Wordsworth in
1882. See Berger, p. 18.

Madrid.

41. National Library. Bible [x? Berger would date it viii], in three
columns, the famous ' Codex Toletanus.' According to a notice in the
MS. itself, its ' auctor possessorque ' (auctor = legal owner ?), Servandus
of Seville, gave it to his frienil John, Bishop of Cordova, who in turn
offered it in the year 988 to the see of Seville ; thence it passed in time
to Toledo and ultimately to Madrid. It is written in Visigothic
characters, and presents the Spanish type of text, strongly resembling
the Cod. Cavensis (no. 28). Collated for the Sixtine revision by Chr.
Palomares, whose work, written in a Hentenian Bible of 1569, is now
preserved in the Vatican (Lat. 9508) ; it was not, however, used in
that revision, as it reached Cardinal Carafa too late. Bianchini published
the collation in his ' Vindiciae Can. Script.,' Eome, 1740, pp. xlvii-ccxvi
( = Migne, Patr. Lat., tom. xxix). Bp. Wordsworth collated the New
Testament in 1882. See Berger, p. 12 ; Merino, Escuela Paleogr., pi. v.
pp. 53-9, Madrid, 1780; Munoz y Rivero, Paleografia Visigoda,
pi. viii, ix, Madrid, 1881 ; Ewald and Loewe, Exempla Scr. Visig.,
pp. 7, 8, pi. ix. Tischendorf s tol. ; Wordsworth's T.

42. University Library, no. 31: Codex Complutensis, i. e. of AlcalA
( = Complutum). Bible [ix or x] ; in the New Test. Laod. follow;
Hebrews. Plainly a Spanish text, but with peculiar readings in the
Epistles, and especially in the Acts. Purchased at Toledo by Cardinal
Ximenes; described by Berger, p. 22, and Westcott, Vulgate, p. 1705.

43. University Library, no. 32. Second volume of a Bible [ix-x],
folio, containing from the Proverbs to the Apocalypse, in a Visigothic
hand ; the ornaments somewhat resembling those of the Codex Cavensis.
It formerly belonged to Cardinal Ximenes: gee Berger, p. 15.

44. Royal Academy of History (Calle del Leon 21), No. F. 186. The
second volume of a Bible [x], small folio, written by the monk Quisius. It
formerly belonged to the Abbey of St. Emilianus (S. Millan de la Cogolla),
between Burgos and Logrofio. Order of books in New Test. ; Ev., Act.,
Paul., Cath., Apoc. (fragmentary). The handwriting resembles Cavensis,
though it is sliglitly larger, and the text also belongs to the Spanish
group. Examined by Bp. Wordsworth in 1882 ; see Berger, p. 16.

g. Svntzerland : Berne.

45. University Library, A. 9. Bible [xi], originally belonging to
Vienne in Dauphin6. Contains an interesting text in Cath. Epp. and
Acts, where it seems to be much under Theodulfian influence or that of
the texts belonging to the South of France ; the corrections too are
interesting. See Berger, p. 62 f.

Einsiedeln. '

46. Einsiedeln Library, no. 1. Bible [eaily x], possibly copied at

A

74 LATIN VERSIONS,

Einsiedeln ; corrected in accordance with a text like that of St. Gall 75.
See Berger, p. 132.

47. Einsiedeln Library, nos. 5-7. Bible [x], also corrected and bearing
Strong resemblance to the one above; same order of books as in 31.

St. Gall.

48. Stiftsbibliothek, no. 1 1 [viii]. A collection of extracts composed
for the use of the monks ;(written by the monk Winithar.^ Vulgate
text but with a mixture of Old Latin readings. See Berger, p. 121 f.

49. Stiftsbibliothek, no. 75. [ix], large folio ; contains complete Bible ;
corrected by the abbot Hartmotus. See Berger, p. 129.

Present position unknown.

50. Bible [xiii, but copied from an early exemplar], edited by
Matthaei (N. T.) in the Act., Epp., Apoc. ; see his preface to Cath. Epp.,
p. XXX f. ; belonged to Paul Demidov. Formerly at Lyons ; Tischendorf s
demid.

B. New Testaments.

a. British Isles : Bvhlin.

51. Trin. Coll. The Book of Armagh. New Test, [ix], written by
Ferdomnach in a beautiful and small Irish hand. Order of books : Evv.,
Paul. (Laod. after Col.), Cath., Apoc, Acts. The New Test, was tran-
scribed for Bp. Wordsworth by the Kev. G. M. Youngman ; the late Dr.
Reeves, Bp. of Down, intended to edit it, and his work is now (1893)
being prepared for the press by Professors Gwynn and Bernard, of Dublin.
See also ' National MSS. of Ireland,' i. pp. xiv-xvii, plates xxv-xxix ;
Berger, p. 31 f. Wordsworth's D.

b. France : Paris.

52. B. N. Lat. 250, formerly Reg. 3572 ; from Saint-Denis. New
Test, [ix], folio, minuscule : Evv., Act., Cath., Paul. (Laod. after Col.,
which in turn is after Thess.), Apoc. Walker's X ; he collated Cath. and
Apoc. Alcuinian text, see Berger, p. 243.

«C(i'/ 53. Lat. 254. New Test, [sii] ; has been described above as c (p. 45).
Text is Old Latin in the Gospels, Vulgate in the rest of the New Test.
See Berger, p. 74.

54. Lat. 321, formerly belonging to Baluze. New Testament [early
xiii], written in the South of France, probably between Carcassonne and
Narbonne. Very interesting text ; in the Epistles and Acts there are a
large number of Old Latin readings ; the text of the Acts is especially
mixed ; orthography incorrect. Berger, p. 77.

55. Lat. 342, formerly Colbert 6155. New Testament [early xiii],
written in the South of France ; contains large mixture of Old Latin
readings throughout ; examined by Berger.

THE VULGATE. 75

c. Germany : Fulda.

56. Abbey of Fulda in Prussia. The well-known Codex Fuldensis
[vi] of the New Testament, written for Bishop Victor of Capua, and
corrected by him a. d. 541-546. The Gospels are arranged in one
narrative, based on tlie order of Tatian's Diatessaron, but with a Vulgate
text ; the Ep. to the Laodiceans follows that to the Colossians. Described
by Schannat in 1 7 2 3 (Vindemiae Literariae Collectio, pp. 2 1 8-2 1 ) , collated
by Lachmann and Ph. Buttmann in 1839, and edited in full by E. Eanke
(Marburg, 1868) ; see also Th. Zahn, Tatian's Diatessaron, Erlangen,
1881, pp. 298-313; S. Hemphill, The Diatessaron of Tatian, Dublin,
1888, pp. X, xi, xxiv-v. Facsimiles in Eanke, and Zangem. and Wattenb.,
Exempla, p. 34. Tischendorfs/wZd; Wordsworth's F.

d. Sweden : Stockholm.

57. Royal Library : Codex Gigas Holmiensis [xiii] ; Old Latin text in
Acts and Apoc, Vulgate in the New Testament; described above, p. 51.

C. Gospels.

a. Austria: Vienna.

58. theo or theotisc refers to the Latin version of the 'Fragmenta
Theotisca versionis ant. Evang. S. Matthaei . . . ediderunt Steph. Endlicher
■et Hoffmann Fallerslebensis ; Vindobonae, 1834' (2nd edit, cura T. F.
Massmann; Viennae, 1841); 15 leaves [viii], containing St. Matt. viii.
33 to the end of the Gospel, but much mutilated ; the recto side of each
leaf contains the Theotisc or Old German version, mixed with Gothic, the
verso contains the Latin ; quoted by Tischendorf in Matt. xx. 28, where
it has the common Latin addition. See also J. A. Schmeller, Ammonii
Alexandrini Harmonia Evangeliorum, Vienna, 1841.

b. British Isles : British Musewin.

59. Reg. L A. xviii. Gospels [x], 199 leaves, written in Caroline
minuscules, originally belonging to King Athelstan, who gave it to
St. Augustine's monastery at Canterbury; mut. after John xviii. 21 ; see
British Museum Catalogue, p. 37. Bentley's O.

60. Reg. L B. vii. Gospels [viii], 155 leaves, written in England. The
Rev. G. M. Youngman, who has examined this MS. carefully, says the
text is very interesting, though rather mixed ; has been corrected
throughout. Bentley's H in Trin. Coll. Cam. B. 17. 14. See Brit. Mus.
Catalogue, p. 19, pi. 16, and Morin, Liber Comicus, p. 426, 1893.

61. ^eig. I. D. ix. Gospels [x], a handsome 4to volume of 1-50 leaves,
the capitals throughout written in gold, and the initial page to each
Gospel finely illuminated ; contains prefatory matter and Capitulare, but
is mut. after John xxi. 18. Formerly belonged to King Canute, as an
Anglo-Saxon inscription on fol. 43 6 testifies. See "Westwood, A.-S. and
Ir. MSS., p. 141 ; PaL Sacra Pict., pi. 23. Bentley's A.

62. Reg.LE.vii Gospels[endofviii], imperfect; 77 leaves, half uncial

76 LATIN VERSIONS.

characters, written in England ; formerly belonging to St. Augustine's,
Canterbury, and in all probability the second volume of the famous
'Biblia Gregoriana' mentioned by Elmham. See Westwood, A.-S. and
Ir. MSS., pi. 14, 15; British Museum Catalogue, p. 20, pi. 17, 18;
Palaeogr. Soc, i. pi. 7 ; Berger, p. 35. Bentley's P.

63. Cotton Tib. A. ii [early x], written in Germany; Gospels, 216
leaves, written in Caroline minuscules, once the property of King Athel-
stan; see British Museum Catalogue, p. 35. Bentley's E.

64. Cotton Nero D. iv. The magnificent Lindisfarne Gospels [vii or
viii], rivalling even the Book of Kells (no. 78) in the beauty of their
writing and the richness of their ornamentation. Written by Eadfrith,
Bishop of Lindisfarne, 698-721 A.D., and other scribes; preserve a very
pure text, agreeing closely with the Codex Amiatinus (no. 29), sometime.s
against all other known Vulgate MSS. The Latin is accompanied by an
interlinear version in the Northumbrian dialect. Edited, rather care-
lessly, for the Surtees Soc, by Stevenson and Waring, 1854-65; and
W. W. Skeat, The Gospel of St. Matthew ; Anglo-Saxon and Northum-
brian Versions, Cambr., 1887 ; see also Westwood, Anglo-Saxon and Ir.
MSS., pp. 33-9, pi. 12, 13; Palaeogr. Sacra Pict., p. 45; Palaeogr.
Soc, i. pi. 3-6, 22; Brit. Mus. Catalogue, p. 15, pi. 8-11; Berger,
p. 39 ; Morin, Liber Comicus, p. 426. The Surtees text revised by the
Eev. G. M. Youngman. Wordsworth's and Bentley's Y.

65. Cotton Otho B. ix. Gospels [x?], nearly destroyed by fire;
there are twelve small fragments containing portions of prefatory matter,
and of SS. Matt., Mark, and John, in small Caroline minuscules, but with
a large capital at the beginning of St. Mark and interlaced ornamenta-
tion. Bentley's D.

66. Cotton Otho C. v. St. Matt, and St. Mark [probably viii], written
n in Saxon handYand possibly part of the same MS. as Bentley's C {see
J\ no. 76).] This Manuscript is now simply a collection of the shrivelled

) fragments of sixty-four leaves which survived the fire of 1731 ; the last
leaf contains Mark xvi. 6-20. See Brit. Mus. Catalogue, p. 20; the
editors, however, doubt whether it is part of the same MS. as no. 76.
Bentley cites these fragments as (^.

67. Egerton 609. Gospels [viii or ix], formerly belonging to the
Monastery of Marmoutier (Majus Monasterium) near Tours, where it
was numbered 102. It is written, however, in an Irish hand and presents
an Irish type of text ; it is much mut., especially in St. Mark. See Brit.
Mus. Catalogue, p. 30. Cited by Calmet, Tischendorf, &c., as mm ;
collated again by the Rev. G. M. Youngman, and cited by Wordsworth
as E.

68. Harl. 1775. Gospels [vi or vii], in small but very beautiful
uncial hand, and with an extremely valuable text. Formerly numbered
4582 in the BibUothfeque Royale at Paris ; stolen from thence by Jean
Aymon, it passed into the possession of Harley, Earl of Oxford, and
then to the British Museum. Collated in part by Griesbach, Symbolae
Criticae, i. pp. 305-26, Halae, 1785; by Bentley or Walker; later
by the Eev. G. "Williams; and for Bp. Wordsworth's Vulgate by the

THE VULGATE. 77

Eev. H. J. White; for facsimiles see Brit. Mus. Catalogue, p.! 14, pi. 3;
Palaeogr. Sec, i. p. 16. Wordsworth's and Bentley's Z ; Tischendorf's
harl.

69. Harl. 1802. Gospels [xii], 156 leaves, a small Irish MS., with
copious marginal notes, written by the scribe Maelbrigte ; stolen from
Paris by Jean Aymon. Bentley's W.

70. Harl. 2788. Gospels [end of viii or beginning of ix], 208 leaves
folio, an extremely fine MS., written throughout in golden uncials, except
the prefatory matter, which is in minuscules ; the vellum and also
the colours used in the illumination are all wonderfully bright and fresh.
See Brit. Mus. Catalogue, p. 22, pi. 39-41 ; Corssen, Ada-H. S. p. 86 ;
Bentley's M in Trin. Coll. Cam. B. 17. 5.

71. Hiirl. 2826. Gospels [ix or x], 160 leaves, Caroline minuscules;
formerly belonging to the monastery of EUer, near Cochem, on the
Mosel ; see Brit. Mus. Catalogue, p. 32. Bentley's H in Trin. Coll. Cam.
B. 17. 5.

72. Addit. 5463. Gospels [viii or ix], from the nunnery of St. Peter at
Beneventum, formerly belonging to Dr. Kichard Mead ; written in a fine
revived uncial hand. The MS. has usually been supposed to have been
written at Beneventum, but Berger doubts this (p. 92). Cited by Bentley
as F, by Wordsworth as fF. Facsimiles in Brit. Mus.' Catalogue, p. 18,
pi. 7, and Palaeogr. Soc, i. p. 236.

Cambridge.

73. University Library, I. i. 6. 32. The Book of Deer; Gospels
[viii or ix], small but rather wide 8vo, 86 leaves, but mut. ; contains
Matt. i. 1 — vii. 23; Mark i. 1 — v. 36; Luke i. 1— iv. 12; John, com-
plete. Belonged originally to the Columbian monastery of Deer in
Aberdeenshire : in 1697 belonged to Bp. J. Moore (of Norwich and Ely),
and with the rest of his library was bought for the University of Cam-
bridge in 1715. Contains many old and peculiar readings (Westcott,
p. 1694). Described by Westwood, A.-S. and Ir. MSS., pp. 89-90;
edited in full with facsimiles by J. Stuart (for th^ Spalding Club),
Edinburgh, 1869.

74. Univ. Libr. Kk. 1. 24. St. Luke and St. John [prob. viii], written
in Irish hand ; collated by Bentley, who cites it as X, and noticed by
Westcott, Vulgate, pp. 1695 and 1712; it contains a valuable text.

75. Trin. Coll. B. 10. 4. Gospels [ix], large 4to, written apparently
by the same scribe as Brit. Mus. Reg. 1. 1). ix (no. 61). This is Bentley's
T; according to Westcott (p. 1713) it is good Vulgate, with some old
readings.

76. Corpus Chr. Coll. cxcvii. Fragments of St. Luke [viii], possibly
from the same MS. as Bentley's <j)) see above, no. 66, and also Westwood,
A.-S. and Ir. MSS., p. 49 ; this MS. has been described, and the frag-
ments of St. John published, by J. Goodwin, Publications of the Cambr.
Antiq. Soc, no. xiii, 1847. CSentley's C. /

77. Corpus Chr. Coll. cclxxxvi Evan. Gospels [vii], formerly belong-

^8 LATIN VERSIONS.

ing to tbe monastery of St. Augustine at Canterbury, and alleged to have
been sent by Pope Gregory to Augustine. They contain an interesting
text, the first hand being corrected throughout in accordance with a MS.
of the type of the Codex Amiatinus. See Westwood, Anglo-Sax. and Ir.
MSS., pp. 49, 50; Pal. Sacra Pict., pi. 11. 1-4; Palaeogr. Soc, i. pi. 33,
34, 44. Collated by the Eev. A. "W. Streane. Bentley's B ; "Words-
worth's X.

BvMin.

78. Trinity College A. 1.6. Gospels [vii or viii], commonly known as the
Book of Kells ; given to Trinity Colle,s,'e, Dublin, by Archbishop Ussher.
This MS. is principally known as being perhaps the most perfect speci-
men of Irish writing and illumination in existence, but it also contains
a valuable text, though marked with the characteristics of the Iiish
family. A collation is given by Dr. Abbott in his edition of the Codex
Usserianus, or r-j (see p. 60). Facsimiles in Palaeogr. Soc., i. pi. 55-8, 88,
89; Westwood, A.-S. and Ir. MSS. pp. 25-33, pi. 8-11, and Pal. Sacra
Pict., pi. 16, 17; also National MSS. of Ireland, i. pp. x-xii, pi. vii-xvii.
Wordsworth's Q.

79. Trinity Coll. A. 4. 5. The Book of Durrow. Gospels [end of
vij, 8vo, semi-uncial, the text is allied to Amiatinus ; cited by Bp.
Wordsworth as durmach. According to an inscription on what was the
last page, the MS. was written by St. Columha himself in the space of
twelve days ; the inscription however, like the rest of the book, is probably
copied from an earlier exemplar. A collation of this MS. is given by
Professor Abbott in his edition of r^ {see p. 50) ; see also his article ' On
the colophon of the Book of Durrow' (Dublin Hermathena, 1891, p. 199).

80. Trin. Coll. The Book of Moling. Gospels [viii or ix], small 4to,
much the same size, writing, and ornamentation as the Gospels of Mac-
durnan (see 84) ; but so defaced by damp as to be quite illegible in parts.

81. Eoyal Irish Academy. The Stowe St. John, formerly in the Ash-
burnham Library ; originally belonging to a Church in Munster. Irish
handwriting and text. See Berger, p. 42.

Durham.

82. Cathedral Library, A. ii. 16. Gospels [vii or viii], 134 leaves; said
to have been written by Bede, and may very possibly have come from the
monastery at Jarrow; Tnut. in parts; text allied to the Cod. Amiatinus.
Cited by Bentley as K, by Wordsworth (who makes use of it only in
St. John) as A.

83. Cathedral Library, A. ii. 17. St. John, St. Mark, and St. Luke
[prob. viii], with another fragment of St. Luke xxi. 33 — xxiii. 34. Se^e
Westwood, A.-S. and Ir. MSS., p. 47 ; Bentley's f, but to be distinguished
from his f in Trin. Coll. Camb. B. 17. 5, which is St. Chad's book at
Liclifield (see no. 85).

Lambeth.

84. Lambeth Palace Library. The Gospels of Macdurnan [x],
216 leaves, Irish writing and ornamentation ; an inscription (fol. 3 h), in
square Saxon capitals, states that it was written by a scribe named
Maeielbrith Mao-Durnain. See Westwood, Pal. Sacra Pict., pi. 13, 14, 15,

THE VULGATE. 79

Lickfidd.

85. Chapter Library. Gospels [vii or viii], traditionally ascribed to
St. Chad, who was Bishop of Lichfield ; formerly the MS. was at Llandaff
on the altar of St. Telian ; 110 leaves, Irish, half -uncial ; the writing
and ornamentation are very beautiful and resemble the Books of Kells,
Lindisfame, &c.; the text belongs to the Irish group of MSS. Contains
Matt., Mark, and Luke i. 1 — iii. 9. A careful collation, with full intro-
duction, and three facsimiles, was published by Dr. Scrivener (Cambridge,
1887); see also Palaeogr. Soc, i. pi. 20, 21, 35; "Westwood, Anglo-Sax.
and Ir. MSS., pp. 56-58, pi. 23, and Pal. Sacra Pict., pi. 12. Bentley's
^in Trin. CoU. B. 17. 5; Wordsworth's L.

Oxford.

86. Bodl. 857, and Auct. D. 2. 14. Gospels [vii], formerly belonging
to St. Augustine's Library at Canterbury, and generally known as
' St. Augustine's Gospels ; ' British text. See Westwood, Palaeogr. Sacra
Pict., pi. 11, no. 5. Casley's y\r ; Tischendorf's hodl.; "Wordsworth's O,
collated for him by F. Madan and Rev. G. M. Youngman.

87. Bodl. Auct. D. 2. 19. Gospels [ix], commonly called the 'Eush-
worth Gospels ' or ' Gospels of Mac Eegol,' written by an Irish scribe,
who died A.D. 820 ; has an interlinear Anglo-Saxon version ; the Latin
text belongs to the Irish type. Mut. Luke iv. 29 — viii. 38; x. 19-39;
XV. 16 — Kvi. 26. Collation given in the edition of the Surtees Soc, The
Lindisfarne and Rushworth Gospels, by Stevenson and Waring, 1854-65 ;
and by W. W. Skeat, The Gospel of St. Matthew; Anglo-Saxon and
Northumbrian Versions, Cambridge, 1887. Casley's XJ Wordsworth's R.

88. Bodl. Laud. Lat. 102. Gospels [x], 210 leaves, fol., Saxon
minuscule ; formerly at Wiirzburg, where it was bought at the instance
of Archbishop Laud. Mixed text, but with traces of Irish influence.
See Berger, p. 54.

89. Corp. Christi Coll. 122. Gospels [prob. xi], an Irish MS.; mut.
John i. 1-33 ; vii. 33 — ^xviii. 20. Bentley's C in Trin. Coll. Cam. B.
17. 5 ; collated for him by Casley ; British type of text.

90. St. John's Coll. 194. Gospels [xi], in very small hand : collated
by Casley and cited by Bentley as y.

Stonyhurst. ^}'/ ^V'/'i!

91. Stonyhurst, Jesuit College. The Gospel of St. John [vii-] ; origin-
ally the property, according to a legend which goes back to the thirteenth
centuiy, of St. Cuthbert, in whose coffin it was found ; it was preserved
in Durham Cathedral till the time of Henry VIII. A minute but ex-
quisitely written uncial MS., with a text closely resembling A;
facsimiles in Palaeogr. Soc, i. pi. 17; Westwood, Palaeogr. Sacra Pict.,
pi. 11, no. 6. Wordsworth's S.

c. France: Angers.

92. Angers Public Library, no. 20. Gospels [ix-x], written in
a French hand, but showing signs of Irish influence both in its
ornamentation and text. See Berger, p. 48.

8o LATIN VERSIONS.

Autun.

93. Autun, Grand Seminaire, no. 3. Gospels [dated 755], written for
Vosavius by Gundohinus ; uncial hand. Vulgate text but with a good
many variations. See Berger, p. 90.

Avignon.

94. Gospels in the monastery of St. Andrew near Avignon : extracts
in Martian ay (Vulgata ant. Latina), 1695, and Calmet (Commentaire litt.,
vii), 1726 : cited by Tischendorf as and. The MS. has disappeared.
See Berger, p. 80.

Paris.

95. B. N. Lat. 256. Gospels [vii], in uncial hand ; Vulgate text but
with a good many Old Latin readings. See Berger, p. 91.

96. Lat. 262, formerly Keg. 3706, from Buy. Gospels [ix], with
prefatory matter, fol., 247 leaves, thick minuscule ; mut. in parts.

Walker's Oj. '

97. Lat. 281 and 298. Gospels [viii], known as ' Codex Bigotianus,'
in fine uncial hand, formerly at Fecamp ; probably written in France,
but both the text and the calligraphy show traces of Irish influence. It
is mut. in parts ; collated by Walker, who cites it as tt, and again by
Wordsworth, who cites it as B. See Delisle, Cab. des MSS., atlas, pi. x.
1, 2 ; Berger, p. 50.

98. Lat. 9389. Gospels [viii ?], 223 leaves, 4to, formerly belonging to
the Benedictine Abbey of St. Willibrord at Echternach ; written in an
Irish hand, with the interesting subscription on the last page, ' Proemen-
daui ut potui secundum codicem de bibliotheca eugipi praespiteri quern
ferunt fuisse sci hieronimi indictione vi p(ost) con(sulatum) bassilii u c.
anno septimo deximo=A.D. 558.' This, however, must have been in the
exemplar from which it was copied, as the MS. itself is at least two cen-
turies later. It presents the Irish type of text, but has been carefully
corrected throughout, and the marginal readings represent another type.
See Delisle, Cab. des MSS., pi. xix. 8 ; Pal. universelle, pi. ccxxvi ; "West-
wood, Anglo-Sax. and Ir. MSS., p. 58, pi. xxi; Berger, p. 52 f. Cited by
Wordsworth as '3? ; collated by the Eev. H. J. White.

99. Lat. 10,439. St. John's Gospel [viii], formerly belonging to the
Cathedral of Chartres, where it was found in the reliquary containing the
sacred vest. A small manuscript, in uncial writing ; mixed text, the
earlier chapters Old Latin, the rest Vulgate. See Berger, p. 89.

100. Lat. 11,955, formerly St. Germain 777, then 663 or 664. 2.
St. Matt, and St. Mark [viii ?], 54 leaves, 4to, golden uncials on purple
vellum ; mut. Matt. i. 1 — vi. 2 ; xxvi. 42 — xxvii. 49 ; Mark i. 1 — ix. 47 ;
xi. 13 — xii. 23. Walker's a ; Tischendorf s reg. ; see 0. L. Bibl. Texts, i.
p. 55 ; Delisle, Cab. des MSS., atlas, pi. i. 2,

101. Lat. 11,959. Gospels [ix], from St. Maur des Fosses. Found
by Sabatier in the St. Germain Library and collated by him ; cited by
Tischendorf as foss.

THE VULGATE. ' 8l

102. Lat. 13,171, formerly St. Germain numbered successively 18,
666, and 223. Gospels [ix], 4to, 223 leaves, small round minuscule.
Walker's ip.

103. Lat. 17,226. Gospels [vii], in uncials. Vulgate text, but with
a certain number of old readings in it. See Berger, p. 90.

104. Nouvelles acquisitions lat. 1587 (Libri 14). Gospels [vii-ix], from
St. Gatien's, Tours, then in the Ashburnham Library, now at Paris.
Quoted by Calmet (Nouv. Dissertations, pp. 448-488), 1720, and by
Bianchini, Ev. Quadr. ; contains a number of Old Latin readings, and on
the whole rather resembles Br. Mus. Egerton 609 (no. 67) in text.
Usually cited as gat. See Berger, p. 46. . C.^*/-

105. Nouv. acq. lat. 2196. Evangeliarium [xi], from Luxeuil, written
about 105 A. D. by Gerard, abbot of the Benedictine monastery there:
sold at Didot's sale in 1879 to the National Library at Paris; cited
by Mabillon, Sabatier, and Tischendorf as lux. See Delisle, Melanges
de Paleographie, p. 154 (1880).

Tours.

106. Public Library 22 ; formerly at Saint Martin. Gospels [viii or
ix], in gold letters, interesting text. Quoted by Sabatier in Mark, Luke,
and John. Walker's ft Tischendorf s to<., Wordsworth's BT; collated for
his edition of the Vulgate by the Eev. G. M. Youngman. See also
Berger, p. 47.

107. Public Libr. 23, formerly St. Martin 174. Gospels [ix], 192 leaves,
minuscule. Collated by L. Chevalier, and cited by Walker as a.
See Dorange, Cat. des MSS. de Tours, 1875, p. 9.

108. Public Libr. 25, formerly Marmoutier 231 according to Delisle.
Gospels [xii], but mut. in many parts and wanting after John vii. 5.
Collated by Chevalier. Walker's r.

d. Germany ; Berlin.

109. Eoyal Library, MS. Theol. lat. 4to, no. 4. Gospels [ix or x], with
prefatory matter; 164 leaves,- 25x20 cent., minuscule. This MS.
formerly belonged to the Augustinian College of Corsendonk near Turn-
hout in Brabant, and is the ' Corsendonkense Exemplar ' of Erasmus,
used by him in his second edition, with notes in his own hand. See
O. L. Bibl. Texts, i. p. 53.

Hrlangen.

110. Gospels at Erlangen, used by Sanftl, Dissertatio etc., Eatisbon,
1789, p. 76, and cited by Tischendorf as erl.

Karlsruhe.

111. Grand Ducal Library, Cod. Augiensis 211. Gospels [ix], formerly
at Eeichenau ; text strongly marked by Irish readings. See Berger,
p. 56.

Mayhingen.

112. Library of Prince OEttingen-Wallerstein. Gospels [viii], from
VOL, II. G

x.

82 LATIN VERSIONS.

the Abbey of St. Arnoul at Metz ; has a note at the end ' Laurentius vivat
senio ' ; the Lanrentins referred to being probably the scribe of the
celebrated Echtemach martyrology. See Berger, p. 52.

Mimich.

113. Eoyal Libr. Lat. 13,601=Cim. 54. Gospels [xi], 119 leaves, folio,
from Niedermunster; magnificent pictures and illuminations; see Kugler,
Museum, 1834, p. 164; Woltmann, Gesch, d. Malerei, i. 258; Berth.
Eichl, Zur Bayr. Kunstgesch., i. 16.

114. Lat. 14,000, Cim. 55. Gospels [ix, dated 870], folio, from St.
Emmeram's, Ratisbon. This magnificent book is written in golden
uncials on fine white vellum, a good deal of purple being employed
in the earlier pages ; there are splendid illuminations before each
Gospel. Collated by C. Sanftl, Dissertatio etc., Eatisbon, 1789. Ti-
schendorf's em.

i^.U^- 115. Eoy al Librar y^ GospelS(^[vii], from Ingolstadt ; muf. in many
■^"^ places, especially in St. Matthew, where it only preserves xxii. 39 —
xxiv. 19 ; XXV. 14 ad Jin. Collated by Tischendorf, who cited it as ing.
His collation is in the possession of Bp. Wordsworth, who cites the
''^-1 MS. as I.

If'uremberg.

116. Dr. Dombart in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr., 1881, p. 455 f., has
drawn attention to some fragments [probably vi cent.] of St. Luke
and St. John now in the Germanisohes Museum at Nuremberg ; they
consist of twenty-eight leaves detached from the covers of books and
contain, though mut., Luke v. 19-^-xxiv. 31, John i. 19-33, written
in a most beautiful uncial hand, perhaps not surpassed by any other
MS. The text seems t6 be allied to Amiatinus, but with a considerable
mixture of Old Latin readings. More fragments from the same MS. are
to be found in the Libri collection ; see ' Catalogue de la partie r^sei-vee
de la collection Libri' (1862), p. 45, no. 226, pi. Iviii.

Trier.

117. Stadtblbliothek, no. xxii. Gospels [endofviii], 172 leaves, folio,
written partly in uncials but mostly in Caroline minuscules ; this is the
famous ' Codes Aureus,' or ' Adahandschrift/ and is a truly magnificent
copy. A full description, both of the palaeography and of the critical
value of the text, is given in the fine monograph published at Leipzig in
1889, and entitled 'Die Trierer Adahandschrift;' by several authors.
The dissertation on the tfext is by Dr. P. Corssen.

Wolfenbilttel.

118. A Wolfenbilttel palimpsest [v], quoted occasionally in the
Gospels by Tischendorf as giie. led. See ' Anecdota sacra et profana,'
p. 164 f.

Wiirzhv/rg.

119. University Library, Mp. Th. q. 1 a. Gospels [early vii], 152 leaves,
4to, formerly belonging to the Cathedral Treasury ; fine uncial writing, and

THE VULGATE. 83

beautiful ivory carving on the covers. According to tradition this MS.
belonged to St. Kilian and was found in his tomb ; see however Berger,
p. 64. Mut. Matt. i. 1— vi. 8; John xx. 23— xxi. 25. Facsimile
in Zangemeister and Wattenb., Supplem. ad Exempla codd. lat.,
pi. Iviii — Iviii a}

120. Mp. th. q. 1. Gospels [s], 194 leaves, 4to, formerly belonging to
the Benedictine monastery of St. Stephen. A splendid MS.

121. Mp. th. q. 4. Gospels [xi], 168 leaves, 4to, probably once the
property of the monastery at Neumunster. A fine MS. and strongly
resembling Mp. th. f. 66 (no. 124).

122. Mp. th. f. 61. St. Matthew [viii], 34 leaves, folio, Anglo-
Saxon writing with interlinear glosses ; the text is largely intermixed
with Old Latin readings. See the monograph of K. Kbberlin, Eine
Wurzb. Evang. Hdschr. j Progr. d. Studienanstalt bei S. Anna in
Augsburg, 1891.

123. Mp. th. f. 65. Gospels [viii or ix], 182 leaves, folio, formerly
belonging to the Cathedral Treasury. Fine minuscule.

124._ Mp. th. f. 66. Gospels [viii or ix], 207 leaves, folio, formerly
belonging to the Cathedral Treasury. Fine minuscule; was a special
treasure of Bishop Heinrich.

125. Mp. th. f. 67. Gospels [vii or viii], 192 leaves, folio, probably
from the Cathedral Treasury ; semi-uncial, and ivory carving on the
cover; there are occasional corrections in an early hand, and the first
hand has a large intermixture of Old Latin readings; mwt. after
John xviii. 35, and does not contain John v. 4.

126. Mp. th. f. 68. Gospels [vi or vii], 170 leaves, folio, formerly
belonging to the Cathedral Treasury ; fine and large uncial, and ivory
carving on the cover; corrected frequently in a later minuscule hand,
but the reading of the first hand is always visible, and agrees largely
with Amiatinus, though in St. John's Gospel there is a good proportion
of Old Latin readings.

127. Mp. th. f. 88. Gospels [xii or xiii], 194 leaves, folio; according
to an inscription on fol. 194 the MS. was brought from Eome by a Cardinal

,to the Council of Basle, and used by him there; and then was bought
for the Cathedral at Wiirzburg and handsomely bound.

e. Holland: Utrecht.

128. Utrecht. At the end of the famous 'Utrecht Psalter' are
bound up some fragments [vii or viii] of St. Matthew (i. 1 — iii. 4) and
St. John (i. 1-21), written in an Anglian hand, strongly resembling
that of the Codex Amiatinus. Facsimiles are given in the well-known
edition of the Psalter, which was photographed by the autotype process
and published in London in 1873. Wordsworth's U.

^ For these MSS. , see as before, G. Schepss, Die altesten Evangelienhandschriften
d. Wurzb. Univ. B., 1887.

G a

84 LATIN VERSIONS.

f. Italy : Gividale.

129. Cividale, Friuli. Gospels [vi or vii]. St. Matthew, St. Luke,
and St. John are at Cividale in Friuli, from which the MS. is named
' Codex Forojuliensis ' ; St. Mark partly at Venice in a wretched and
illegible plight, partly at Prague. This last portion (xii. 21 — xvi. 20)
was edited by J. Dobrowsky (Prague, 1778), and is cited by Tischendorf
as prag. ; the other Gospels are edited by Bianchini in the ' Evang.
Quadruplex,' ii. app., p. 473 f., and are cited by Tischendorf as /or. ; the
MS. is cited throughout by "Wordsworth as J. St. John is mut. xix.
29-40 ; XX. 19 — xxi. 25. Facsimile in Zangem. and Wattenb., pi. 36.

Milan.

130. Ambrosian Library, C. 39 inf. Gospels [vi], 288 leaves,
uncial ; with the numbers of the Sections and Canons in small Greek
uncials, and some early and interesting lectionary notes in the margins ;
the text is also very interesting and valuable. Mut. Matt. i. 1-6 ;
25 — iii. 12 ; xxiii. 25 — xxv. 41 ; Mark vi. 10 — viii. 12. In a later hand
[ix] are Mark xiv. 35-48 ; John xix. 12-23 ; also a repeated Passion
lesson, John xiii — xviii. Wordsworth's M ; transcribed for his edition
of the Vulgate by Padre Fortunato Villa, one of the ' Sorittori ' of the
Library.

131. Ambrosian Library, I. 61 sup. Gospels [viii], Irish hand;
interesting text ; it has been corrected throughout, and the corrections
are as interesting as the original text, giving us good specimens of
' Western' readings; see Berger, p. 58.

Perugia.

132. Chapter Library; part of St. Luke's Gospel [vi], in a purple
MS. ; contains Luke i. 1 — xii. 7, but much mut. Edited by Bianchini,
Evang. Quadr., ii. app., p. 562 ; Tischendorf s pe. ; Wordsworth's P.

Turin.

133. Gospels [vii ?], at Turin, used by Tischendorf and cited by him
as taur. ; see ' Auecdota Sacra et Profana,' p. 160.

g. Spain : Escurial.

134. Gospels [xi], 170 leaves, double columns, written apparently
at Spires on the Rhine, in gold letters ; now in the Escurial, not
numbered, but exhibited under glass ; the 'Aureum exemplar' of Erasmus;
see Old Lat. Bibl. Texts, i. p. 51.

h. Switzerland : Berne.

135. University Library, no. 671. Gospels [ix or x], written in
a small and graceful Irish hand ; mixed text. See Berger, p. 56.

Geneva.

136. No. 6. Gospels [viii or ix], Anglo-Saxon text. Berger, p. 57.

St. Gall.

137. Stiftsbibliothek. No. 17 [ix — x], part of a 4to volume of 342

THE VULGATE. 85

pages, two MSS. bound up together; pp. 3-117 contain the Gospel of
St. Matthew ; pp. 118-132, St. Mark i. 1— iii. 27 with preface.

138. No. 49 [ix], 4to, 314 pages. Gospels, with prefatory matter.

139. No. 50 [ix-x], 4to, 534 pages. Gospels, with prefatory matter
and capitulare.

140. No. 51 [viii], folio, 268 pages, Irish semi-uncial. Gospels ;
illuminated title-pages and initials, strongly resembling the style of
the Books of Kells and Lindisfarne (nos. 78, 64). Vulgate text,
but with Old Latin readings, especially in the earlier chapters of St.
Matthew. See Berger, p. 56.

141. No. 52 [ix], folio, 286 pages. Gospels, with prefatory matter.

142. No. 53 [ix-x], folio, 305 pages. Gospels, with title-pages and
initials finely illuminated; written by Sintram, a Deacon at St. Gall,
and known as the ' Evangelium longum ' ; remarkable also for its hand-
some binding with ivory carvings.

143. No. 60 [viii], folio, 70 pages, Irish writing. St. John's Gospel,
with illuminated title-page and picture of St. John ; this is one of the
thirty ' libri scottice scripti,' mentioned in the ninth century catalogue
of the Library ; Tischendorf transcribed part of this MS.

144. No. 1394; the book of fragments that contains the Old Latin
fragments, nop {see p. 49). Pages 101-104 are two leaves small folio
[ix] in Irish minuscules, and contain St. Luke i-iii ; transcribed by
Tischen4pr£

145. No. 1395 [vi], being pp. 7-327 of a 4to MS., containing 90
leaves and a number of fragments of a MS. of the Gospels in Roman
minuscules ; only Matt. vi. 21 — John xvii. 18 remain. The scribe says
that he had two Latin MSS. before him, and a Greek MS. to which he
occasionally referred. See below, no. 180. Tischendorf's san.

i. United States : Oswego N. Y.

146. Library of Th. Irwin, Esq. Gospels [viii], gold letters on purple
vellum, formerly in the Hamilton Collection (No. 151); falsely ascribed
to Abp. Wilfrid of, York (t709) ; see Berger, p. 259.

D. Acts, Epistles, Apocalypse.

a. British Isles : British Museum.

147. Add. 11,852. Pauline Epp. (including Laod.), Act., Cath.,
Apoc. [ix], 215 leaves, small 4to, Caroline minuscule. Written for
Hartmotus, Abbot of St. Gall (872-884): it afterwards belonged to
the Library of Ea)rmund Kraft at Ulm, and was described by
J. G. Schelhorn in 1725 and Haberlin in 1739; bought at Frankfort
by Bp. Butler : see Dobbin, Cod. Montfort., Introd., p. 44 ; and the
careful examination by E. Nestle, Bengel als Gelehrter, pp. 58-60,
Tubingen, 1892. Wordsworth's U2 ; collated by the Eev. H. J. White.

86 LATIN VERSIONS.

Oxford.

148. Bodl. 3418. The Selden Acts, Seld. 30 [vii or viii], mut. xiv.
26 — XV. 32. A most valuable uncial MS., collated by Casley, who cited
it as X. and by Bp. Wordsworth, who cites it as O^. See Westcott, Vul-
gate, p. 1696.

b. France : Paris.

149. B. N. Lat. 305 ; Acts, Cath., Paul. (Laod. between Col. and
Thess.), Apoc. [xi], texts resembling B. N. 93 (see above, no. 15); pro-
bably written at Saint Denis. Berger, p. 100.

150. Lat. 309; Acts, Epp., Apoc. [xi], in following order: Pauline
Epp. (with Laod. after Thess.), Acts, Cath., Apoc. The text, especially
in the Acts, resembles that of B. N. 93 {see above, no. 15). Berger, p. 99.

151. Lat. 13,174. Formerly St. Germain 23, then 669; Acts, Cath.,
Apoc. [ix], 139 leaves, 4to, thick minuscule. Valuable text, and contains
an interesting note oa — the~passage i John v. 7 > Berger, p. 103.
Walker's y.

152. Lat. 17,250. Acts and Apocalypse [early xii] ; 126 leaves,
32 X 23 cent. ; a corrector, apparently of the thirteenth century, has
added in the Acts a number of interesting additions from an extremely
old version. Formerly at Navarre, and bought in 1445 by Nic. de la
Mare from Jean de Mouson. Examined by S. Berger.

c. Germany : Munich.

153. Eoyal Lib. Lat. 6230. Formerly Preisingen 30. Acts, Cath.,
and Apoc. [early ix?], 126 leaves, large rough Caroline minuscules,
Described in the Munich Catalogue as tenth century, but it seems nearer
the beginning of the ninth ; has a good text, but rather mixed, especially
in the Acts, where there are strange conjunctions of good and bad read-
ings. Wordsworth's M^. Collated by the Eev. H. J. White.

d. Switzerland : St. Gall.

154. Stiftsbibliothek. No. 2 [viii], part of a thick 4to volume of 586
pages (not leaves), containing various matter; pp. 301-489 contain
Acts and Apoc. in a large minuscule hand, written by the monk and
priest Winithar ; text interesting, but mixed. Wordsworth's S^ in Acts
and Apoc. Collated by the Rev. H. J. White.

155. No. 63 [ix], 4to, 320 pages. Acts, Epistles, and Apoc. divided
as follows: foil. 2-163 Pauline Epp. ; 163-244 Acts; 245-283 Catholic
Epp. (but not 2 and 3 John), the ' three heavenly witnesses ' in i John
V. 7 being added by a contemporary corrector ; 283-320 Apocalypse.

156. No. 72 [ix], folio, 336 pages, containing St. Paul's Epp., Acts,
Cath. Epp., and Apoc.

157. No. 83 [ix], large folio, 418 pages; a fine MS., written by the
order of Grimaldus and presented by him to the Library. Contains St.
Paul's Epp., Acts, Cath. Epp., and Apoc, with prefatory matter.

158-. No. 1398* [xi], folio. A collection of fragments, of which ff.
230-255 contain fragments of Acts i. 1 — ^v. 36.

THE VULGATE, 87

E. Epistles (Cath., Paul.) and Apoc.

a. British Isles : British Museum.

159. Harl. 1772. Epistles and Apoc. [viii], Col. after Thess., and
lacking Jude and Laod. ; the Apoc. is mut. xiv. 16-fin. Formerly at
Paris, from whence it was stolen by Jean Aymon. "Written in a French
hand, but showing traces of Irish influence in its initials and ornamenta-
tion ; the text is much mixed with Old Latin readings ; it has been
corrected throughout, and the first hand so carefully erased in places as
to be quite illegible. Collated in part by Griesbach, Symb, Grit., i.
pp. 326-82, and by the Eev. H. J. White; see also Berger, p. 50.
Bentley's M in Trin. Coll. Cam. B. 17. 14 ; Wordsworth's Z^.

Cambridge.

160. Trin. Coll. B. x. 5 [ix], the Neville MS., 4to, Saxon hand : St.
Paul's Epp., beginning i Cor. vii. 32. Bentley's S.

Oxford.

161. Bodl. Laud. Lat, 108 [ix], 4to, 117 leaves, Irish hand. Contains
St. Paul's Epp. with prefatory matter (ending at Heb. xi. 34), in following
order : Rom., i, 2 Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil,, r, 2 Thess., Col,, i, 2 Tim., Tit.,
Philem., Heb. A valuable text, corrected apparently by three hands ;
the original text Old Latin, but has been much erased ; in many cases
agrees with d (Claromontanus) against most, or all, other MSS. See
Westcott, Vulgate, p. 1696. Casley's x; Wordsworth's O3.

b. France : Loon

162. Public library, no. 45. Epistles a,nd Apoc. [xiii], from the
monastery of St. Vincent near Laon. 141 leaves, 4to, containing latter
part of the Old Testament, and the Epp. Apoc. in following order :
Kom., I, 2 Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col., i, 2 Thess., i, 2 Tim., Tit.,
Philem., Heb., Apoc, James, i, 2 Pet., i, 2, 3 John', Jude ; and then the
apocryphal Petitio Corinthiorum a Paulo apostolo, and 3rd Ep. to the
Corinthians. See Bratke in Theol. Lt.zeitung, 1892, p. 585 ff.

Orleans.

163. Public Library, no. 16. Consists of a number of fragments of
five Biblical MSS. ; the two last contain portions of i Cor., i Thess., Eph.,
and Phil, [viii !]. Berger, p. 84.

Paris.

/ 164. B. N. 107. The Latin version of Cod. Claromontanus. Walker
(_ collated Eom. and i Cor. as far as x. 4 ; he cites it as 8. __y

165. Lat. 335. Pauline Epp. [viii], in Lombard characters. A valu-
able MS. Wordsworth's Lp

166. Lat. 2328. Codex Lemovicensis. Catholic Epp. [ix], mixed
text ; contains i John v. 7, with the ' Three Heavenly Witnesses,' but in
a mutilated form. Wordsworth's Lj.

167. Lat. 9553. Formerly Tours 116. St. Paul's Epp., with other matter
[xi], 114 leaves, long minuscule; see Delisle, Notice sur les MSS. disparus

88 LATIN VERSIONS.

de la Bibl. de Tours, no. iv. p. 17 (1883). Collated by Chevalier;
Walker's v.

c. Germany: Bamberg.

168. Royal Library, A. ii. 42. Apocalypse and Evangelistarium [x],
written in the monastery of Reichenau; a gift from the Empress
Kunigunde to the Collegiate foundation of St. Stephan. Noticeable
especially for the large number of pictures (fifty-seven) with which the
MS. is ornamented ; it is perhaps one of the most interesting specimens
we have of the pictorial art of this period. See Leitschuh, Filhrer durch
d. kg]. Bibl. zu Bamberg, 1889, p. 89 ff.

Munich.

169. Eoyal Library, Lat. 4577. St. Paul's Epp. [viii ?J, with pre-
fatory matter ; Col. after Thess., and followed by Laod. ; Heb. at end.

170. Lat. 6229, formerly Freisingen 29. St. Paul's Epp. [viii or ix],
with prefatory matter. Order as above. The text of this MS. appears
to be like 169, and is excellent in the Romans, mixed in the other Epp. ;
there is an interesting stichometry ; examined by Berger.

171. Lat. 14179. St. Paul's Epp. [ix or x] ; interesting text.

Wilrzhurcf.

172. University Library,' Mp. Th. f. 12. Epistles of St. Paul [ix],
with Irish glosses. A well-known MS. The glosses have been published by
Professor Zimmer (Glossae Hibernicae, Berhn, 1881), and by Mr. Whitley
Stokes, with a translation (The Old Irish Glosses of Wiirzburg and
Carlsruhe, Austin, Hertford, 1887); selections published and translated
by the Rev. T. Olden (The Holy Scriptures in Ireland a thousand years
ago, Dublin, 1888).

173. Mp. Th. f. 69. Pauline Epp. [viii], with Irish initials; Col.
after Thess.

d. Italy: Monza,

174. Collegiate Archives, no. If. Fragments of a Bible [x], Lombard
writing ; all that is left in the New Test, is part of the Epistles of St.
Paul. Probably copied from an ancient MS.; Col. follows Eph. ; text
strongly resembles that of Milan E. 26 inf. (no. 30 above). Berger,
p. 139.

Rom^.

175. Vat. Reg. Lat. 9. Pauline Epp. [vii], 114 leaves, 30-3 x 20-3
cent., uncial. Collated for Bp. Wordsworth's Vulgate by Dr. Meyncke,
and cited as Rj ; see also Bianchini, Vindiciae, p. cclxxxiii. Colossians
are placed after Thessalonians ; see Berger, p. 85.

Verona.

176. Chapter Library, no. 74. St. Paul's Epistles [x], a text strongly
agreeing with the first corrector of Cod. Fuldensis (see above, p. 75,
no. 56); Corssen, Ep. ad Galatas, Berlin, 1885, p. 19.

THE VULGATE.

89

e. Switzerland : St. Gall.

177. Stiftsbibliothek, no. 64. [ix], a 4to MS. of 414 pages, of which
ff. 1-267 contain St. Paul's Epp.

178. No. 70. [viii], folio, 258 pages, written by the monk "Winithar, of
which ff. 1-250 contain St. Paul's Epp. (Hebrews being placed after
2 Timothy). See Berger, p. 117.

179. No. 907. [viii], 4to, 320 pages, large hand, written by the monk
"Winithar; pp. 237-297 and 303-318 contain the Epistles of James,
Peter, and John, and Apoc. i. 1 — ^vii. 2.

180. No. 908. 219 pages 4to [vi], of which pp. 77-219 form a very
valuable palimpsest MS. ; the original writing, a Martyrology in Eoman
semi-uncial hand ; over this, St. Paul's Epp. in uncials, beginning Eph.
vi. 2 and finishing i Tim. ii. 5. Transcribed by Tischendoff and quoted
by him as san.

181. No. 1395 5ee above, no. 145. Pages 440-441 in the same col-
lection contain fragments of Col. iii. 5-24 in a large Irish hand.

We now subjoin the various notations of these MSS., Bentley's,
Walker's, Casley's, Tischendorfs, Wordsworth's: —

Bentley's notation.

A= 61.

B = 77.

C = 76."

C in Trin. Coll. Camb. B.

17.5 = 89.
D= 65.
E = 63.
F = 72.
H= 60.
H in Trin. Coll. Camb. B.

17.5=71.
K= 82.
M= 159.
M in Trin. Coll. Camb. B.

17.5 = 70.
0= 59.
P = 62.
E = 3.
S = 160.
T = 75.
W=69.
X = 74.
Y= 64.
Z = 68.
(f) = 66.
c -— g3_

^ in Trin. Coll. Camb. B.
17. 5 = 85.

Walker's and Casley's
notation.

a =100.

y (Walker) = 151.

y (Casley) = 90.

8 = 164.

e = 10.

rj = 11.

6 = 15.

K = 16.

\ = 52.

IJ, = 21.

V = 20.
Oj = 96.
02 = 19.
■n =. 97.
p = 106.
(7 = 107.
T = 108.

V = 167.
(j) = 102.

X (Ew.) = 87.
X (Act.) = 148.
X (Epp.) = 161.
i/f = 86.

TJBchendorf 's notation.

am. = 29.

and. — 94.

go

LATIN VERSIONS.

hoil.

=:

86.

cav.

r=

28.

demid.

^

50.

em.

=

114.

erl.

=

110.

f<yr.

=r

129.

foss.

^

101.

fold,
gat.

gue. lect.
ha/rl.

=

66.
104.
118.
68.

ing.
lux.

=

115.
105.

mm.

=

67.

mt.

=

106.

j,e. =
prag.(=for
reg. =
san.{Ev.) =

taur. =

132.

.) = 129
100.
145.
180.
133.

theotisc.

=

58.

tol.

=

41.

Wordsworth's

aotation.

A =

29

B =

97

B. =

25

£F =

72

C =

28

D =

51

A =

82

E =

67

JP =

F =

G =

H =

© =

I =

J =

K =

L =

L. =

L3 =

M =

M, =

M' =

=

o. =

Os =

p =

Q =

E =

E. =

S =

s, =

T =

TJ =

U, =

V =

w =

X =

Y =
Z =

z, =

98.

56.

21.

6.

18.

115.

129.

5.

85.

165.

166.

130.

153.

106.

86.

148.

161.

132.

78.

87.

175.

91.

154.

41.

128.

147.

37.

2.

77.

64.

68.

159.

CHAPTEK IV.

EGYPTIAN OK COPTIC TEESIONS.

'T'HE critical worth of the Egyptian versions has only recently
been appreciated as it deserves, and the reader is indebted
for the following account of them to the liberal kindness of one of
the few English scholars acquainted with the languages in which
they are written, the Rev. J. B. Lightfoot, D.D., then Canon of
St. Paul's, and Hulsean Professor of Divinity at Cambridge;
who, in the midst of varied and pressing occupations, found
time to comply with my urgent, though somewhat unreasonable,
request for his invaluable aid in this particular for the benefit
of the second edition of the present work. His yet more arduous
labours, as Bishop of Durham (cui quando ullum inveniemus
parem f) did not hinder him from revising his contribution for
the enriching of the third edition of this work. In this, the
fourth edition, the Editor has the pleasure of acknowledging the
most valuable help of the Rev. G. Horner, who has in particular
revised the description of the MSS. of the Bohairic version, and
of the Rev. A. C. Headlam, Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford,
who has added the result of more recent research. Mr. Headlam's
additions, are, wherever it is possible, distinguished by being
enclosed in square brackets.

(1) The Egyptian or Coptic Versions.

Most ancient authors, from Herodotus downwards, referring
to the heathen period of Egyptian history, mention two distinct
modes of writing, the sacred and the common. In place of the
former, however, Clement of Alexandria (Strom, v. 4, p. 657), who
has left the most precise account of Egyptian writing, substitutes
two modes, which he designates hieroglyphic and hieratic (or

92 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.

priestly) respectively; but since the hieratic is only a cursive
adaptation of the hieroglyphic, the two are treated as one by
other writers under the common designation of ' sacred ' (l€f>a).
Both these forms of the sacred writing are abundantlj"- repre-
sented in extant monuments, the one chiefly in sculptured stone,
the other on papyrus rolls, as we might have anticipated.

The common writing is designated by various names. It is
sometimes the ' demotic ' or ' vulgar ' (STj/xoriKa Herod, ii. 36,
brifjidbri Diod. iii. 3) ; sometimes the ' native ' or ' enchorial '
{eyX(i>pia in the trilingual inscriptions of Rosetta and Philae);
sometimes ' epistolographic ' or letter- writer's character (Clem.
Alex. I. c.) ; and in a bilingual inscription recently (1866) dis-
covered at Tanis (Reinisch u. Roesler, Die zweisprachige In-
schrift von Tanis, Wien, 1866, p. 55), it is called 'Egyptian'
simply (tepotj ypdixfxaa'i.v koi AlyvirrLois Koi 'EWrjviKois). This last
designation, as Lepsius remarks (Zeitschr. f. Aegyptische Sprache,
iv. p. 30, 1866), shows how completely the common writing had
outstripped the two forms of sacred character at the time of this
inscription, the ninth year of Ptolemy Euergetes I. This demotic
character also is represented in a large number of extant papyri
of various ages.

These two modes of writing, however — the sacred and the
vulgar — besides the diflference in external character exhibit also
two different languages, or rather (to speak more correctly) two
different forms of the same language. Of ancient writers indeed
the Egyptian Manetho alone mentions the existence of two such
forms (Joseph, c. Ap. i. 14), saying that in the word HyJcsos the
first syllable is taken from ' the sacred tongue ' (ttjv iepav yX&cr-
(rav), the second from the ' common dialect ' (rjji; koivt\v hi6XiKTov) :
but this solitary and incidental notice is fully borne out by the
extant monuments. The sacred character, whether hieroglyphic
or hieratic, presents a much more archaic type of the Egyptian
language than the demotic, differing from it very considerably,
though the two are used concurrently. The connexion of the
two may be illustrated by the relation of the Latin and the
Italian, as the ecclesiastical and vulgar tongues respectively of
mediaeval Italy. The sacred language had originally been the
ordinary speech of Egypt ; but having become antiquated in
common conversation it survived for sacred uses alone. Unlike
the Latin however, it retained its archaic written character

COPTIC. 93

along -with its archaic grammatical forms. {See Brugsch, De
Natura et Indole Linguae Popularis Aegyptiorum, Berlin, 1850,
p. 1 sq.)

The earliest example of this demotic or enchorial or vulgar
writing belongs to the age of Psammetichus (the latter part of
the seventh century b. c.) ; while the latest example of which I
have found a notice must be referred to some time between the
years a.d. 165-169, as the titles (Armeniacus, Parthicus, &c.)
given to the joint sovereigns M. Aurelius and L. Verus show^.
During the whole of this period, comprising more than eight
centuries, the sacred dialect and character are used concurrently
with the demotic.

The term Coptic is applied to the Egyptian language as spoken
and written by Christian people and in Christian times. It is
derived from the earliest Arabic conquerors of Egypt, who speak
of their native Christian subjects as Copts. No instance of this
appellation is found in native Coptic writers, with one very late
and doubtful exception (Zoega, Catal., p. 648). Whence they
obtained this designation, has been a subject of much discussion.
Several theories which have been broached to explain the word
will be found in J. S. Assemani, Delia Nazione dei Copti, &c.,
p. 172 (printed in Mai, Script. Vet. Coll., V. P. 2), and in Quatre-
mere, Recherches Critiques et Historiques sur la Langue et la
Litt^rature de I'lfigypte, Paris, 1808, p. 30 sq. A very obvious
and commonly adopted derivation is that which connects it
with the town Coptos in Upper Egypt; but as this place was
not at that time prominent or representative, and did not lie
directly across the path of the Arab invaders, no sufficient
reason appears why it should have been singled out as a desig-
nation of the whole country. In earlier ages, however, it seems

1 My authority for these facts is Brugsch, Grammaire Dgmotique, p. 4, but
what does he mean by the words which I have italicised? 'Au nombre des
auteurs les plus r^cents qui nous aient donn^ des tSmoignages sur I'existence
du d^motique il faut citer St. Clement, pretre de IMglise chr<§tienne k Aiexandrie,
et qui vivait vers I'an 190 de notre 6re, ou environ le temps oil r^gnait I'empereur
S4vSre. Mais les monuments nous prouvent que cette date n'est pas la demiere ;
il se trouve encore des inscriptions d'une 6poque plus rapproch^e ; telle est par
exemple une inscription d<5motique que M. de Saulcy avait eopife en Egypte et
qu'il eut la complaisance de me eommuniquer pendant mon s^jour k Paris ; elle
date du rfegne en commun d' Aurelius et de V^rus, ce qui prouve que dam la
premik-e moUie dM troisiime slide le d^motique 6tait encore oonnu et en usage.'
L. Verus died a.d. 169.

94 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.

to have been a much more important place, both strategically and
commercially (see Brugsch, Die Geographie des alten Agyptens,
i. p. 200 ; Egypt under the Pharaohs, i. p. 212 sq., Eng. trans.).
Even as late as the Roman epoch Strabo (xvii. p. 815) describes
it as ' a city with a mixed population of Egyptians and Arabians '
(irokLv Koivriv AlyvTTTicov re Koi ' kp&fiaiv), and elsewhere (xvi. p. 781)
he mentions it as a station of Egyptian traffic with Arabia and
India. Possibly therefore this Arabic name for the Egyptians is
a survival of those early times. On the whole, however, it seems
more probable that the Arabic word is a modification of the
Greek Myd-nTios (Schwartze, Das alte Aegypten, i. p. 956). [And
this derivation seems now to be generally accepted, the Greek
word alyimrios being represented in Coptic by VTHXIOC, or
KTIIT^LIOC, whence came Qiht (the common form) and our
Coptic. (Stern, Koptische Grammatik, p. 1.)]

From this account it will appear that the Coptic, as a lan-
guage, cannot diflfer materially from the demotic. As a matter
of fact the two are found on examination to represent two suc-
cessive stages of the same language — a result which history
would lead us to anticipate. But while the language is essen-
tially the same, the character of the writing is wholly difierent.
The demotic character was derived ultimately from the hiero-
glyphic. Hence it represents the same medley of signs. Only
a small number are truly alphabetic, i. e. denote each a single
sound. Others represent syllables. Others again, and these
a very large number, are not phonetic at all, but pictorial.
Of these pictorial or ideographic signs again there are several
kinds ; some represent the thing itself directly ; others recal it
by a symbol ; others again are determinative, i. e. exhibit the
class or type, to which the object or action belongs. It is
strange that this very confused, cumbrous, and uncertain mode
of writing should have held its ground for so many centuries,
while all the nations around employed strictly phonetic alpha-
bets ; but Egypt was proverbially a land of the past, and some
sudden shock was necessary to break up a time-honoured usage
like this and to effect a literary revolution. This moral earth-
quake came at length in Christianity. Coincidently with the
evangelization of Egypt and the introduction of a Christian
literature, we meet with a new and strictly phonetic alphabet.
This new Egyptian or Coptic alphabet comprises thirty letters,

COPTIC. 95

of which twenty-four are adopted from the Greek alphabet,
while the remaining six, of which five represent sounds peculiar
to the Egyptian language and the sixth is an aspirate, are signs
borrowed from the existing Egyptian writing. If there is no
direct historical evidence that this alphabet was directly due to
Christianity, yet the coincidence of time and historic probability
generally point to this. The Christians indeed had a very
powerful reason for changing the character, besides literary con-
venience. The demotic writing was interspersed with figures
of the Egyptian deities, used as symbolic or alphabetical signs.
It must have been a suggestion of propriety, if not a dictate
of conscience, in translating and transcribing the Scriptures to
exclude these profane and incongruous elements from the
sacred text.

The date at which this important change was introduced into
Egyptian writing has been a matter of much dispute. If it is
correctly attributed to Christian influences, the new alphabet
must have been coeval with the birth of a native Christian
literature in Egypt. The earliest extant remains of such a litera-
ture, to which we can fix a date with any certainty, are the
Epistles of St. Antony (who was born about the middle of the
third century) to Athanasius and Theodore; but, as we shall
see presently, one or both of the two principal Egyptian versions
must have been already in common use at this time. Indeed,
if the date assigned to a recently discovered writing be correct,
the introduction of the new character was much earlier than
this. On the back of a papyrus in the British Museum, con-
taining the Funeral Oration of Hyperides, is a horoscope in
Greek and Egyptian, the latter written in Greek characters,
with the additional six letters almost, though not quite, identical
with the forms in the ordinary Coptic alphabet. Mr. C. W.
Goodwin, who describes this important document in Chabas,
'Melanges %yptologiques,' 2me s^rie, p. 294 sq., and in the
' Zeitschrift furAegyptische Sprache,' vi. p. 18 sq., February, 1868,
calculates (though he does not speak confidently) that it is the
horoscope of a person born A.D. 154i.

' The date, however, is placed very much earlier by Eevillout (Melanges d'Ar-
ch^ologie Egyptienne et Assyrienne, p. 40), who supposes the Coptic alphabet to
have been a work commenced by pagan Gnostics, completed by Christian
Gnostics, and adopted when complete by their orthodox successors.

g6 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.

Any account of the Coptic dialects must start from the well-
known passage in the Copto-Arabic gra,mmar of Athanasius,
bishop of Kos in the Thebaid, who flourished in the eleventh
century. 'The Coptic language,' he writes, 'is divided into
three dialects ; that is to say, the Coptic dialect of Misr, which
is the same as the Sahidic ; the Bohairic ^, which gets its name
from the province of Bohairah ; and the Bashmuric in use in the
region^ of Bashmur. At the present time only the Bohairic and
Sahidic continue to be used. These different dialects are derived
from one and the same language' (quoted in Quatremfere, Sur la
Langue &c., p. 20 sq.). For the present I will dismiss the
Bashmuric, as it will require further investigation hereafter.
The remaining two, the Bohairic and Sahidic, were the principal
dialects of the language, being spoken in Lower and Upper
Egypt respectively ; and are largely represented in extant
remains of biblical and ecclesiastical literature ^.

The Sahidic and Bohairic dialects are well defined and
separate from each other. Among other distinctive features
the Sahidic delights in the multiplication of vowels as com-
pared with the Bohairic ; thus it has eXeooXe for <lXoXi,
jULHHOje for JULHoj, 2ji.X<i.A.Te for ^^JX^Jn, cgeXeex for
ctjeXex, &c. Again the Sahidic has smooth-breathings where
the Bohairic has aspirates, e.g. IXHTG for c^HOTI 'heavens,'
THT for •eHO'T ' wind ' ; and it substitutes the simple aspirate
for the stronger guttural, e.g. UJItg,' for COIt^ 'life,' n^^
for 4'<S-^ ' rend.' Besides these miore general distinctions, the
two dialects have special peculiarities, not only in their gram-
matical forms, but even in their ordinary vocabulary; thus
Sah. SiUJK for Boh. I 'to go,' Sah. g^e for Boh. pH-f

1 [That Bahiric is a wrong transliteration is shown by Stern, Zeitsohr. fiir Aeg.
Sprache, 16 (1878), p. 23.]

^ [There has been considerable variation in the names given to the different
dialects. The terms Thebaic and Memphitic have been commonly adopted as
a more convenient nomenclature, but, as will be shown below, the latter name
at any rate is inoon-ect and misleading. Owing to the accident that the
Memphitic dialect was the form of Coptic best known and earliest studied in
Western Europe, the term Coptic has been sometimes confined to the Bohairic
or Memphitic, as distinguished from the Sahidic or Thebaic, and was so used
by Tisohendorf ; this usage also is erroneous and misleading ; and the names
Bohairic and Sahidic are almost universally employed by scholars at the
present day.]

COPTIC DIALECTS. 97

'manner,' Sah. &^2, for Boh. JULHttj 'a multitude,' 'many,'
and so forth. Indeed the relations of the Sahidic and Bohairic
dialects to each other may be fairly illustrated, as will have
appeared from these facts, by the relation of the Ionic and Attic,
though the differences in the Egyptian dialects are greater than
in the Greek. Like the Attic, the Bohairic is the more literary
and cultivated dialect of the two.

The demotic writing does not give the slightest indication
that there were different dialects of the spoken language {see
Brugsch, Grammaire Ddmotique, p. 10). In the Coptic, i.e.
Christian, literature we learn this fact for the first time; and
yet in the earliest age of this literature the dialects are found
to be fully developed. Brugsch, however, has shown (De Natura
&c., p. 10) that transcriptions of several Egyptian words into
Greek in the age of the Ptolemies occur in two different forms,
which correspond fairly to the two dialects ; and indeed it would
seem probable that the separation of the Bohairic and Sahidic
should be ascribed to the more remote time, when these regions
formed separate kingdoms. The older Egyptian writing, whether
sacred or demotic, would obscure the distinction of dialects,
partly from a conservative fondness for time-honoured modes
of representation, but chiefly owing to the nature of the character
itself. Thus this character makes no provision for the nicer
distinction of the vowel-sounds, while the dialectic differences
depend very largely on the divergent vocalization. Thus again
it sometimes represents allied consonants, such as I and r, by the
same sign ; while one of the most striking peculiarities of dialect
is the common substitution of I in the dialect of the Fayoum
for r in the Sahidic and Bohairic, as e.g. hXh for Hpn 'wine,'
X^AJtm for poJULni 'year,' XlJUlI for piJlXI 'weeping,' and
the like.

Of the time when the Scriptures were translated into the
two principal dialects of Egypt no direct record is preserved.
Judging, however, from the analogy of the Latin and Syriac
and other early versions, and iudeed from the exigencies of the
case, we may safely infer that as soon as the Gospel began to
spread among the native Egyptians who were unacquainted
with Greek, the New Testament, or at all events some parts of
it, would be translated without delay. Thus we should probably
not be exaggerating, if we placed one or both of the principal

VOL. II. H

g8 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.

Egyptian versions, the Bohairic and the Sahidic, or at least
parts of them, before the close of the second century^- There
are, so far as I am aware, no phenomena whether of text or of
interpretation in either, which are inconsistent with this early
date. Somewhat later than this we meet with notices which
certainly presuppose the common use of a native version or ver-
sions of the Scriptures. Quatrem^-e (Sur la Langue &c., p. 9 sq.)
and Sehwartze (Das alte Aegypten, p. 956 sq.) have collected
a number of such notices, from which we may gather that it was
the exception and not the rule, when a native Egyptian bishop
or monk in the early centuries could speak the Greek language
besides his own. Thus for instance St. Antony, who was born
about the year 250, could only speak his native tongue, and in
conversing with Greeks was obliged to use an interpreter (Athan.,
Vit. Ant. 74 ; Hieron., Vit. Hilar. 30 ; Pallad., Hist. Laus. 26).
His own letters, of which fragments are extant, were written in
Egyptian. Yet he was a son of Christian parents, and as a
boy listened constantly to the reading of the Scriptures (Athan.,
I. c, § 1). When only eighteen or twenty years old, we are told,
he was powerfully influenced by hearing the Gospel read in
church (§§ 2, 3) ; and throughout his life he was a diligent reader
and expositor of the Scriptures. Indeed it is quite plain from
repeated notices, that the Scriptures in the Egyptian tongue
were widely circulated and easily accessible at this time (see
esp. § 16 iXeyev aiiTois [i.e. rols fxovaxois] rfj AlyVTTTiaKrj (podv^
ravTa' ras ixiv ypa(pas iKavas etvai irpos bibacTKaXCav k. t. X.). Again
his contemporary Theodore, a famous abbot to whom one of his
letters is addressed, was equally ignorant of any language
but his own, and had to use an interpreter in speaking with
strangers and Alexandrians (Sahid. MS. clxxvii in Zoega, Catal.,
p. 371). The notices of Theodore's master Pachomius, the
founder of Egyptian monasteries, point in the same direction.
This famous person, who was converted as a young man in the
early years of the fourth century, was tiU late in life unacquainted
with any language but his own. Receiving a visit from an

' Sehwartze, whose opinion will not be suspected of any theological bias,
infers from the historical notices that ' the greatest part of the New Testament
writings, if not all, and a part of the Old Testament, especially the Psalms, had
been already translated, in the second century, into the Egyptian language, and
indeed into that of lower as well as into that of Upper Egypt' (p. 963).

COPTIC DIALECTS. 99

Alexandrian, another Theodore, he assigned to him as his
companion and interpreter a monk who could speak Greek.
After some time he himself applied himself to the study of this
language that he might be able to converse with his new friend
(Zoega, p. 77 sq., and references in Quatremere, Sur la Langue &c.,
p. 12). Pachomius drew up rules for the guidance of his
monastery in the Egyptian language. These rules, which are
extant in Greek and Latin translations (Migne, Patrol. Graec, xl.
p. 947 ; Hieron., Op., ii. p. 53 sq.), demand a very diligent study
of the Scriptures from the brethren, even from novices before
admission into the order. Again and again directions are given
relating to the use of manuscripts. These notices indeed refer
chiefly to the Thebaid, which was the great seat of the Egyptian
monasteries; but the first part of St. Antony's life was spent
in the monasteries of Alexandria, and it was only later that he
retired to the Thebaid (Athan., Vit. Ant. 49). Though probably
more common in Lower than in Upper Egypt, the knowledge
of Greek was even there an accomplishment denied to a large
number of native Christians. Thus for instance, when Palladius
visited John of Lycopolis, an abbot of the Nitrian desert, he
found his knowledge of Greek so slight that he could only
converse through an interpreter (Hist. Laus. 43). These, it will
be remembered, are the most prominent names among the
Egyptian Christians ; and from such examples it must be plain
that the ordinary monk would be wholly dependent on a native
version for his knowledge of the Scriptures. Yet the monks
swarmed both in Upper and Lower Egypt at this time. Palladius
reckons as many as 7,000 brethren under Pachomius in the
Tabennitic monastery (Hist. Laus. 38 ; comp. Hieron., Praef. in
Keg. Pach. 2, ii. p. 54), while Jerome states that close upon
50,000 would assemble together at the chief monastery of the
order to celebrate the anniversary of the Lord's Passion (ib. § 7).
After all allowance made for exaggeration, the numbers must
have been very great. Even at a much later date the heads of
the Egyptian Church were often wholly dependent on their
native tongue. At the Robber Synod of Ephesus (a.d. 449)
Calosirius, bishop of Arsinoe, spoke and signed through his
deacon, who acted as interpreter (Labb., Cone. iv. p. 1119, 1179,
1188, ed. Colet.). And again two years later, when Dioscorus
of Alexandria started for the Council of Chalcedon, he was

H 3

lOO EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.

accompanied by one Macarius, bishop of Tkou, a man of some
note in his day, who could not be made to understand a word
of Greek (Memph. MS. liv, in Zoega, Catal., p. 99).

[The above was the most complete account of the dialects
of the Coptic language and of the early history of the Coptic
versions at the time when it was written ; but in the last ten
years immense additions have been made to our knowledge —
additions which have rather complicated than solved the problem.
These have been mainly due to the process of new discovery
and to the labour of many scholars. A large number of
previously unedited Coptic MSS. have been published ; many
new MSS. have been discovered, and the grammar of the
language has been studied with great minuteness. The credit of
the discovery and editing of new MSS. must be largely given to
the energy and industry of the French school at Cairo, and
especially to a former member of it, M. Am^lineau, who has
published a very large number of texts; the advances in our
knowledge of the grammar are due to the labours of the German
school of Egyptologists, notably Stern, Erman, and Steindorff.
More important in some ways has been the discovery of an
immense number of documents of a completely new class,
written on papyrus, partly in and near the Fayoum, but also
throughout the whole of Upper Egypt. These documents present
us with the language in an earlier stage than we had previously
known, and in a class of writings such as letters, contracts, and
other legal documents, which conform to the spoken language of
different parts of Egypt ^■

It is on the subject of the Egyptian dialects that our views
have been most modified. We have seen that three dialects in
aU are mentioned by Athanasius of Cos: the Bohairic, the
Sahidic, and a third, the Bashmuric. When therefore fragments
of a third version of the Scriptures were discovered, the name
Bashmuric was at once assigned to them. The early history of
^^^,^ the discussions on this dialect ymim admirably summed up by
Bishop Lightfoot. (3rd edition, pp. 401-403.)]

' For convenience the following abbreviations will be used: 'Z. A. S.' for

Zeitschrift fur Aegyptische Sprache ; ' Recueil ' for the Eeciceil de iravaux relatifs a la
philologie et a I'archeologie egypHennes et assyriennes ; ' M^moires ' for the Mimoires de
la Mission Archeologique Fran^aise au Caire ; and ' Mitt.' for the Mittheilungen aus der
Sammlung der Papyrus Ersherzog Bainer.

COPTIC DIALECTS. lOI

The first fragment, i Cor. ix. 9-16, was published at Kome
in 1789 by Giorgi, from a MS. in the Borgian Museum, in the
work which has been already mentioned. He designated it
Bashmuric, and, as the dialect presents affinities to both the
Bohairic and Sahidic, he assigned to it a corresponding lo-
cality. Herodotus (ii. 42) mentions the inhabitants of the
Ammonian Oasis as speaking a language intermediate between
the Egyptian and Ethiopian ; and on the strength of this passage,
combined with the phenomena just mentioned, Giorgi placed
Bashmur in this region, deriving the word from the Coptic
cn^AXHp ' the region beyond,' i.e. west ,of the Nile, and gave
the dialect a second name A'm'monian (p. Ixviii sq.). In the
same year Munter in his work on the Sahidic dialect (see
above, p. 393), published this same fragment independently at
Copenhagen. He had not seen Giorgi's work, but adopted
provisionally his name Ammonian, of which he had heard, while
at the same time he stated his own opinion that the variations
of form are too slight to constitute a separate dialect (p. 76).
In 1808 appeared Qnatremfere's work, to which I have more
than once alluded. In it he included another fragment of
this dialect (Baruch iv. 22 — v. 22, and Epist. Jerem.), from a MS.
in the Imperial Library of Paris. At the same time he pointed
out that the passage in Herodotus will not bear the interpre-
tation put upon it by Giorgi, and that, as a matter of fact, the
Ammonians speak not a Coptic, but a Berber dialect. He also
refuted Giorgi's opinion about the position of Bashmur, and
showed conclusively (p. 147 sq.) from several notices in Arabic
writers that this region must be placed in the Delta. In a later
work (Mdmoires Gdographiques et Historiques sur I'figypte,
i. p. 233, 1811) he identified it more definitely with Elearchia,
the country of the Bucoli, that fierce and turbulent race of
herdsmen, who, living in the marshy, pasture land and protected
by the branches of the Nile, gave so much trouble to their
Persian, Greek, and Roman rulers successively (see Engelbreth,
p. x). The defiant attitude, which in earlier times these Bucoli
assumed towards their successive masters, was maintained to the
end by the Bashmurites towards their Arab conquerors. While
the other Copts succumbed and made terms, they alone
stubbornly resisted. At length the Arab invaders were vic-
torious, and the Bashmuric race was extirpated. It would seem,

I02 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.

therefore, that Bashmur is the Arabic modification of the Coptic
HCi-JULOTp, ' regio cincta,' the country girdled by the Nile.

But this being so, Quatremfere, looking at the linguistic
character of these fragments, denies that they belong to the
Bashmuric dialect at aU ; and suggests for them a locality which
■will explain their affinities to both the Bohairic and Sahidicj
assigning them to the Great and Little Oasis, and accordingly
designating them Oasitic. In 1810 Zoega's ' Catalogus,' a
posthumous work, appeared, in which he published all the
fragments of this third Egyptian dialect found in the Borgian
collection, comprising (besides a portion of Isaiah) John iv. 28-53 ;
I Cor. vi. 1 9— ix. 16 ; xiv. 33— xv. 85 ; Eph. vi. 18-24 ; Phil. i. 1—
ii. 2; 1 Thess. i. 1— iii. 6; Heb. v. 5-9; v. 13— vi. 8-11 ; 15—
vii. 5 , 8-13 ; 16 — x. 22, nearly all of these passages being more
or less mutilated. And in the following years these same
passages were edited by Engelbreth (Fragmenta Basmurico-
Coptica Veteris et Novi Testamenti, Havniae, 1811), who had
not seen Zoega's edition. Both Zoega and Engelbreth, though
agreeing with Quatremfere in the position of Bashmur (the former
without having seen Quatremere's book), yet claimed these
fragments as Bashmuric.

In this opinion there is good reason for acquiescing. It seems
highly improbable that Athanasius of Kos, a Christian bishop,
can have been ignorant of a dialect so important that the
Christian Scriptures were translated into it (for the various
fragments oblige us to suppose a complete version of the Old and
New Testaments), a dialect moreover which, on Quatremere's
hypothesis, was spoken not so very far from his own neighbour-
hood. And on the other hand it is not very probable that all
traces of a dialect which was known to him should have perished,
as would be the case if these fragments are not Bashmuric^.
To counterbalance this twofold difficulty involved in Quatre-
mfere's hypothesis, the linguistic objections ought to be serious
indeed. But until we are better acquainted with the early
history of Egypt than we are ever likely to be, it will be im-
possible to say why the Bashmuric dialect should not be separated
geographically from the Sahidic by a dialect like the Bohairic

' Quatremfere can only point to a single word accidentally preserved, which
according to his hypothesis belongs to the real Bashmuric (Sur la Langue &c.,
p. 213 sq.).

COPTIC DIALECTS. I03

■with which it has fewer, though still some special affinities. The
interposition of an Ionic between two Dorian races in Greece
will show the insecurity of this mode of argument.

[We must now continue the history. Although Bishop
Lightfoot summed up in favour of the theory which would
assign these fragments to the Bashmuric, his acuteness had
noticed the difficulties which would be involved in the separa-
tion of that dialect from the Sahidic, with which it had close
affinities by what was then called the Memphitic. The greater
knowledge of Egyptian history, which he desired but did not
hope for, has become possible. And the objection is supported.

In 1878 Stern examined the history and character of the
third Egyptian dialect (Z. A. S. 16, 1878, p. 23), and showed that
it was almost impossible on either linguistic or historical grounds
to assign it to the district of Bashmur. He pointed out that all
the fragments we possessed of it had come from Upper Egypt,
that we had positive evidence that there was no version of
the Scriptures in the Bashmuric dialect, and that in dialectic
affinities it was clearly akin to Sahidic. He also found evidence
in Tuki of the existence of- another dialect there called Memphi-
ticus Alter, and that this was supported by papyrus documents
which came from the site of Memphis {see below), which have
some, although not a complete, resemblance to the Bashmuric
fragments. Hence he concluded that the third dialect was
Middle Egyptian, and, guided by two or three words on a
fragment of papyrus brought from the Fayoum, he decided that
that district must have presented the characters of isolation and
independence, which would make the development of a third
dialect possible. The proof of his theory was not long to seek.
Already in the year 1877 attention had been called to the
fragments now known as the Fayoum papyri, and very soon
they began to appear in European libraries ; it was not long
before Berlin and Vienna acquired very large collections. An
examination of the Coptic papyri in these collections has proved
conclusively the truth of Stern's conclusions. The vast majority
of these present the same dialectic affinities as the third Bible
translation, and show also (as these had hinted) that the
orthogi-aphy of the dialect was not fixed, in fact that hardly two
documents present exactly the same linguistic character, although
all are definitely distinguished from the other two dialects.

104 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.

It may therefore be confidently asserted that all the literature
hitherto published as Bashmuric is in the dialect of the Faydum.

But the discoveries do not stop here. As early as 1876
M. E. Eevillont had published (Papyrus Coptes, 1876, p. 103)
a collection of documents in the Louvre -which came from the
Monastery of Abba Jeremias, close to the Serapeum, near the
Bite of the ancient Memphis. These were examined by Stern
(Z. A. S. 23, 1885, p. 145 sq.), who shows that here we have
again a different dialectic form. It has affinities to the Sahidic,
affinities to the Bohairic, and affinities to the Fayoum dialect.
It represents in fact the language of ancient Memphis, and an
attempt has been made to caU it Memphitic, but this would
create endless confusion. Stern suggests Lower Sahidic (Unter
Sahidisch), but the name Middle Egyptian is the one which has
been generally adopted. It is this discovery that shows the
necessity of avoiding the term Memphitic for the principal
Egyptian version, and substituting the Arabic name ' Bohairic'
That was the language of the province on the sea-coast in the
neighbourhood of Alexandria. And it was not until the eleventh
century, and the removal of the Patriarchate to Cairo, that it
became the language of the district of Memphis, that is, long
after the decline of Memphis had begun.

But our knowledge of the dialects of Egypt was still further
to be extended. About ten years ago excavations were under-
taken by the Egyptian Department of Antiquities in the Coptic
Cemetery of Akhmim, the ancient Chemnis or Panopolis in
Upper Egypt. Amongst the results of this discovery were the
Apocryphal fragments, which have created a considerable sen-
sation lately. These seem to have been considered by their
discoverers to possess so little interest, that they were only
accidentally given to the world seven years afterwards. The
Coptic fragments were more fortunate, and in 1884 M. Bouriant,
head of the French School at Cairo, published considerable
fragments of the Old Testament, including a hitherto unknown
Apocryphal work, the Testament of Sophonias (Zephaniah), in
a fifth dialect, to which, for some reason, he at the time gave
the name of Bashmuric (M^moires, i. 1884, p. 243). This dialect
was examined by Stern (Z. A. S. 24, 1886, p. 129), who showed
that, while its affinities were with the Middle Egyptian or
Lower Sahidic, it represented a more primitive stage in the

COPTIC DIALECTS. I05

language, and that these documents are our oldest literary-
remains of the Coptic language.

In the place then of the two or three dialects known until
recent years, we have now at least five : the Bohairic, Sahidic,
Fayoumic, Middle Egyptian, and Akhmimic, not to speak of the
Bashmuric, in which no literary remains exist. The exact
relations of these dialects to one another have not yet been
satisfactorily worked out, and the problem is complicated by the
■ fact that most of them had no fixed or standard form, and that
papyri (especially those containing documents in the popular
speech) vary in every locality and every age. To write the
history then of these dialects and of the New Testament in them
is not at present possible ; but the following may suggest some
more or less tentative conclusions.

In the earlier stages of the Egyptian language as we have it
now in a written form, there are apparently no certain signs of
dialectic variations, although there is certainly evidence that such
did exist in the spoken language ; and the changes introduced by
Christianity are of great interest. The old language was fixed
and definite in its orthography, and it represented the traditions
of a caste of scribes, and not of the popular speech. Christianity
on the other hand was in Egypt a great popular movement ;
a new and simple alphabet became necessary; the Scriptures
were translated^ not into the literary language, but into that of
the people ; and the copies of these translations in each locality
reflected the local peculiarities of speech which had existed for
centuries, but which up to that time had left behind no literary
memorial. Gradually, however, the Christian Church created
for itself literary traditions, and a tendency towards unifica-
tion set in round three centres, the monasteries of the Natron
Lakes, the great home of monastic life in Lower Egypt, the
monasteries of the Fayoum, and the great "White Monastery
Deir Amba Shenoudah near Sohag in Upper Egypt. Hence
came the three dialects which have a more or less literary
character. Then began the decay of the Coptic language. First
the dialect of the Fayoum died out, then the Sahidic, until
finally Bohairic became, as it is now, the church language of the
whole country.

The relation of these changes to the history of the versions
has not yet been satisfactorily worked out. It has been suffi-

Io6 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.

ciently proved that translations into Coptic existed in the third
century, very probably in the second ; but in what dialect
they were made, and what relation they bore to the existing
translations, has not yet been discovered, and the problem
remains unsolved.]

(2) The Bohairic Version'^.

The Bohairic version was not included in the Polyglotts,
though others much later in date and inferior in quality found
a place there. The first use of it is found in Bp. Fell's Oxford
N. T. (1675), to which many readings were contributed by the
Oxford Oriental scholar, T. Marshall, Eector of Lincoln College,
who died in 1675, before the Coptic New Testament was pub-
lished. It was afterwards employed by Mill, who recognized its
importance, and gave various readings from it in the notes and
appendix to his edition of the Greek Testament (1707). These
readings he obtained partly from the papers of Marshall, who
had contemplated an edition of the Coptic Gospels, but was
prevented by death from accomplishing his design, and partly
from the communications of a foreign scholar, Lud. Piques.
The MSS. which supplied the former belonged at one time to
Marshall himself, and are now in the Bodleian ; the latter were
taken from MSS. in the Royal Library at Paris (see Mill's ' Prol.,'
pp. clii, clx, clxvii).

The editio princeps of the Bohairic version appeared a few
years later with the title 'Novum Testamentum Aegyptium
vulgo Copticum ex MSS. Bodleianis descripsit, cum Vaticanis et
Parisiensibus contulit, et in Latinum sermonem convertit David
Wilkins Ecclesiae Anglicanae Presbyter, Oxon. 1716.' The
editor Wilkins was a Prussian by birth, but an Oxonian by
adoption. In his preface he gives an account of the MSS. which
he used, and which will be described below. The materials at
his disposal were ample, if he had only known how to use
them ; but unfortunately his knowledge of the language was not
thoroughly accurate, nor had he the critical capacity required
for such a task. His work was very severely criticized at the
time by two eminent Egyptian scholars, Jablonsky and La Croze,
whose verdict has been echoed by most subsequent writers ; and
1 Memphitio (Lightfoot), Coptic (Tischendorf and others).

BOHAIRIC. 107

no doubt it is disfigured by many inaccuracies. But be may
fairly claim the indulgence granted to pioneers iu untrodden
fields of learning, and he has laid' Biblical scholars under a debt
of gratitude which even greater errors of detail could not efface.
With some meagre exceptions this was the first work which had
appeared in the Egyptian tongue ; and under these circumstances
much may be forgiven in an editor. The defects which render
caution necessary in using it for critical purposes are twofold.
First. The text itself is not constructed on any consistent or
trustworthy principles. It is taken capriciously from one or
other of the sources at his disposal; no information is given
respecting the authority for the printed text in any particular
passage ; and, as a rule, no various readings are added. In the
prolegomena indeed (p. xi sq.) notices of two or three variations
are given, but even here we have no specification of the MSS.
from which they are taken. Secondly. The translation cannot
be trusted. The extent of this inaccuracy may be seen from the
examples in Woide, Append. Cod. Alex., p. 16 sq., and Schwartze,
Evang. Memph. Praef., p. xxii. One instance will suffice. In
I Cor. xiii. 3 Wilkins gives the rendering 'ut comburar,'
corresponding to the common reading tva Kavdr\crwix.ai ; though
the Memphitic has \^.T^^ ojOTfcyOT JU.JUl.OI = foa Kavxqo-uiiiai.
Yet Wilkins' error has been so contagious that Tattam in his
Lexicon gives Kaieiv 'incendere' as a sense of cyOTcyoT,
refemng to this passage as an example, though its universal
meaning is ' to praise,' ' to glorify.'

In 1829 the British and Foreign Bible Society published an
edition of the Four Gospels in Coptic (Bohairic) and Arabic.
It is a handsomely printed 4to, intended for the use of the
native Christians of Egypt. In the Coptic portion, which was
edited by Tattam, the text of Wilkins was followed for the most
part, but it was corrected here and there from a recent MS.
which will be described below, Evang. 14. This edition has no
critical value.

Between the edition of Wilkins and those of Schwartze and
Boetticher more than a century and a quarter elapsed ; but no
important step was taken during this period towards a more
critical use of the Bohairic version. Wetstein appears to
have been satisfied with the information obtainable from Mill
and Wilkins. Bengel was furnished with a few various readings

Io8 EGYPTIAN- VERSIONS.

from the Berlin MSS. by La Croze; and Woide again in his
preface, p. [13], gave a collation of Mark i. from the Berlin MS.
of this Gospel. Griesbach seems not to have gone beyond
published sources of information; and this has been the case
with later editors of the Greek Testament.

The title of Schwartze's edition is 'Quatuor Evangelia in
dialecto linguae Copticae Memphitica perscripta ad Codd. MS.
Copticorum in Eegia Bibliotheca Berolinensi adservatorum nee
non libri a Wilkinsio emissi fidem edidit, emendavit, adnota-
tionibus criticis et grammaticis, variantibus lectionibus expositis
atque textu Coptico cum Graeco comparato instruxit M. G.
Schwartze.' St. Matthew and St. Mark appeared in 1846^
St. Luke and St. John 'in the following year. The title of the
work fully explains its aim. The editor was an exact Egyptian
scholar, and so far it is thoroughly trustworthy. The defects of
this edition, however, for purposes of textual criticism are not
inconsiderable. (1) Schwartze's materials were wholly inade-"
quate. Though the libraries of England, Paris, and Rome contain
a large number of MSS. of different ages and qualities, not one
of these was consulted ; but the editor confined himself to one
good MS. and one indifferent transcript, both in the Berlin
library. These will be described below.- The text of the
Bohairic Gospels therefore still remains in a very unsatis-
factory state. (2) His collation with the Greek text is at once
superfluous and defective. This arises from his capricious
choice of standards of comparison, the Codex Ephraem and the
printed texts of Lachmann and Tischendorf (1843). If he had
given an accurate Latin ti-anslation of the whole, and had
supplemented this with a distinct statement of the reading of
the Bohairic version, where variations are known to exist in
other authorities, and where at the same time a Latin version
could not be made sufficiently explicit, the result would have
been at once more simple, more complete, and more available.
As it is, he has contented himself with translating particular
sentences (more especially those which are mistranslated in
Wilkins), while his method of comparison necessarily overlooks
many variations. With all its defects, however, this edition has
a far higher value than its predecessor for critical pui'poses.
Not the least useful part of Schwartze's notes is the collation of
the published portions of the Sahidic Version, where also he has

BOHAIRIC. 109

corrected errors in the edition of "Woide and Ford (see below,
p. 129 sq.).

Schwartze only lived to complete the four Gospels. He had,
however, made some coUations for the Acts and Epistles during
his last visit to England ; and after his death they were placed
in the hands of P. Boetticher, 'who continued the work. The
titles of Boetticher's editions are 'Acta Apostolorum Coptice,'
and 'Epistulae Novi Testamenti Coptice,' both dated Halae,
1852. His plan, however, differs wholly from Schwartze's. He
substitutes an 8vo size for the 4to of his predecessor ; and he
gives no translation or collation with the Greek, but contents
himself with noting the variations of his MSS. in Coptic at the
foot of the page. Thus his book is absolutely useless to any one
who is unacquainted with the language. Moreover his materials,
though less scanty than Schwartze's, are far from adequate. For
the Acts and for the Catholic Epistles he employed Schwartze's
collations of two Enghsh MSS., which he calls tattamianus and
curetonianus, and himself collated or obtained collations of two
others in the Paris Library (p), (m) ; while for the Pauline
Epistles he again used Schwartze's collations of the same two
English MSS., together with another Paris MS. (p), and the
Berlin MSS., which will be described below. The account,
which he gives in his preface, of the MSS. employed by him is
so meagre, that in some eases they are with difficulty identified.
Nor again are the collations used for this edition nearly complete.
I have pointed out below the defects in Schwartze's collation of
one of the English MSS., which I have partially examined ; and
Brugsch in an article in the ' Zeitschr. der Deutschen Morgenl.
Gesellsch.,' vii. p. 115 sq. (1853), has given a full collation of the
Berlin MS. of the Epistle to the Romans, showing how many
variations in this MS. are not recorded in Boetticher's edition.
The Apocalypse has never appeared.

About the same time a magnificent edition of the whole of the
New Testament in Coptic (Bohairic) and Arabic was published
under the auspices of the Society for Promoting Christian
Knowledge. The first part, which is entitled ni XtJOJW. Itni
^ rinienri-rveXlort GTOT^.^, ' The Book of the Four Holy
Gospels,' bears the date 1847, Tattam's Coptic Lexicon having
appeared in 1836 1; the second, comprising the remaining books,
> See also A. J. Butler's ' Coptic Churches,' vol. ii, Oxford.

no EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.

including the Apocalypse, is called HI XUJXK JULi.g,fi. riTe
■f 2iI^.eHKH JuL£epi, ' The Second Book of the New Testament,'
and appeared in 1852. We are informed in a Coptic colophon
at the end, that the Book was edited by 'Henry Tattam the
presbyter of the Anglican Church for the Holy Patriarch and
the Church of Chi-ist in Egypt.' The type is large and bold, and
the volumes are very handsome in all respects, being designed
especially for Church use. The editor's eminent services to
Coptic literature are well known, but the titles and colophon do
not suggest any high expectations of the value of this edition to
the scholar. The basis of the text in this edition was a copy
belonging to the Coptic Patriarch ; but the editor collated it
with MSS. in his own possession and with others belonging to
the Hon. R. Curzon, adopting from these such variations as
seemed to him to agree with the best readings of the Greek
MSS. As no various readings are recorded, this edition is quite
useless for critical purposes : nor indeed was the aim which the
editor set before him consistent with the reproduction of the
Bohairic New Testament in its authentic form. The inter-
polated passages for instance are printed without any indication
that their authority is at all doubtful.

The following account of the Bohairic MSS. existing in
European libraries, though probably very imperfect, will yet be
found much fuller than any which has hitherto been given.
Indeed the list in Le Long (Bibl. Sacr., i. p. 140 sq.) is the only
one which aims at completeness ; and the date of this work
(1723) would alone disqualify it, as a guide on such a subject
at the present time. Those manuscripts which I describe from
personal inspection are marked with an asterisk. In other cases
my authorities ai'e given.

A. The Gospels.

In the Bodleian Library at Oxford are :

*1. Hunt. 17, foL, paper, Copt. Arab., a very fine and highly important
MS. Among other illuminations are seated figures of the four Evan-
gelists prefixed to the several Gospels. The date is given at the close of
St. John as the year 890 (of the martyrs), i.e. a.d. 1174 \ "Wilkins

' I have always added 284 to the year of the Martyrs for the year a. d. ; but
this will not give the date accurately in every case, as the Diocletian year hegau
in August or September j see Clinton, Fast. Kom., ii. p. 210.

BOHAIRIC. Ill

(p. vi), though giving the Coptic numerals correctly tOCJ, interprets
them 790, i.e. a.d. 1074. This will serve as an example of his inac-
curacy ; and in future I shall not consider it necessary to point out his
errors, which are very numerous, unless there is some special reason for
doing so. The scribe's name, John a monk, appears in a colophon at the
end of St. Mark.

The importance of this MS. consists in a great measure in its marginal
additions, which are very frequent. The text seems to give the original
Bohairic version in a very pure form; while the margin supplies all
or nearly ^11 the passages which in fewer or greater numbers have crept
into the text of other Bohairic MSS., and which (so far as regards the
Bohairic version itself) must be regarded as interpolations ', whatever
sanction they may have in Greek MSS. or other ancient authorities.
Among these marginal additions I have noted Matt. vi. 13 (the doxology);
Mark vi. 11 djiriv Xeym k.t.X., vii. 16 ei Tis ?x" ^'''' "•''•^•j xiii- 14 ™ priBev
ino AavtrjK tov 7rpo0^rou, XV. 28 Koi iTrXrjpaydrj k.t.\.; Luke i. 28 evXayrifiivrj
ail iv yvvai^lv (in this case, however, not in the margin, but in the text
in a smaller hand); xxii. 43, 44 (the agony); xxiii. 17 avdyKrjv 8e clx^v
K.T.X. ; xxiii. 34 ; John vii. 53 — viii. 11. On the other hand the descent
of the angel, John v. 3, 4, which is wanting in many Bohairic MSS.
and can hardly have been part of the original Bohairic version, stands
in the text here. At the end of St. Mark the margin gives in an ancient
hand (whether coeval with the MS. or not, I am unable to say) the
alternative ending of this Gospel substantially as it is found in L and
other authorities. This marginal note runs as follows : OTOg, ItH

THpoT eTi-qgjOngjert JULJUioq [juljuliuot ?] itrtHeTT ^^yi
xJLertenc^. ne-rpoc onrog, ^en ovuong, eKoX i.nfcij£i
jutJULcuonr OTOg, JULertenc^ ni-i 2^e oit ^.qo•)f(J0^2,
epcjooT nxe mc icxen ^IJUL^.^c^^^.I ivre 4>pK cg^ "eq-
jL«.^.rt2,u)Tn OTog, i.qoT(jupnoT e g,! tyennoTqi
eoo-r^-K ^^-^-JU.oT^K fixe niojit.^ iteiteg, i.JU.Hri nA.i
ott rteujoT enfHiii itT-oTo-if oTog, Axeitertci. m.i
eqe-r^-g^tJuoT [eTT-i-^coo-r ?] rt[itxe ?] ^j^^ffl^op'^ep
iteju. ^j'^-n&ox&ex onrog, JULnoirxe g^Xi ng^Xi nci.xi

H^-yepO'f" Vi.p ne. ' And all those things he commanded to those
that went after Peter, and they told them openly, and after these things
again also (8f) Jesus appeared to them from the rising of the sun unto
the setting thereof, and sent them to preach the holy and imperishable
gospel of eternal life. Amen. These again are reckoned (added) to them;
And aftei- these things troubles and afflictions possess them, and they
said not a word to any man, for they were afraid.' I have translated
the emendations suggested in brackets, for without them it is hardly
possible to make sense. But, even when thus corrected, the passage

1 I have observed Luke xxiii. 17 in at least three wholly distinct forms in
different Bohairic MSS.

113 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.

is not free from confusion. The alternative ending, as here given, most
closely resembles the form in the Aethiopic MSS.

*2. Hunt. 20, fol., paper. The titles, initials, &c., are illuminated.
The Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons are marked, besides Greek
and Coptic chapters. This MS. omits the additions in Matt, xviii. 11,
Luke xxii. 43, 44; John v. 3, 4; vii. 63 — viii. 11, but contains those
of Matt, xxiii. 13 (after ver. 14); Luke xxiii. 17, 34. The catalogue
ascribes this MS., which is undated, to the thirteenth century ; but this
is probably too early.

*3. Marshall 5, fol., paper. The titles, initials, &c., illuminated. The
Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons are marked. This MS. is very
like the last in general appearance. In the catalogue the date of
a donation is given as A. Mart. 1214:= 1498 A. d. It contains the
additions Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17, 34; John v. 3, 4; vii. 53 — viii. 11 ;
but omits Matt, xviii. 11. Petraeus, who transcribed this MS. in the
seventeenth century, calls it very ancient and in ruinous condition.

*4. Marshall 6, fol., paper. The last few pages are supplied by a later
hand. A colophon gives the year of the original MS. as A. Mart. 1036
= A.D. 1320, and that of the restoration = 1641 A.D., as A. Mart.
1357. This MS. omits the additions of Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17;
John v. 3, 4 ; vii. 53 — viii. 11.

*5. Marshall 99, small 8vo, paper, containing the Gospel of St. John
only. A comparatively recent but interesting MS. It has no date
recorded. It omits John v. 3, 4 ; vii. 53 — viii. 11.

In the British Museum :

*6. Oriental 425, 4to, paper, Copt. Arab. Ff. 2a — 6b contain the
Eusebian tables, after which originally followed the four Gospels in the
common order, ending fol. 116b. The whole of St. Luke however, and
the whole of St. John except xix. 6 — xx. 13 and xxi. 13-25, are wanting,
owing to the mutilation of the MS. The original paging shows that
they once formed part of the volume. The subsequent matter is not
Biblical. The Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons are given
throughout. A colophon at the end of St. John gives the name of the
scribe John, who must have copied it from the codex in the possession
of the Catholic Institute of Paris in the year 1024 of the Martyrs, i.e.
A.D. 1308. This MS. was purchased at Archdeacon Tattam's sale.
The addition in Matt, xviii. 1 1 is wanting.

*7. Oriental 426, 4to, paper, Copt. Arab. The Gospel of St. John,
of which the beginning as far as i. 1 3 is wanting. After this Gospel
follow some extracts from the New Testament, Eph. iv. 1-13; Matt,
xvi. 13-19; Luke xix. 1-10, with other matter. Like the last MS.,
this was bought at Tattam's sale. It has not the additions John v. 3, 4 ;
vii. 53 — viii. 11.

*8. Oriental 1001, large Bvo, paper, with illuminations, Copt. Arab.,
'bought of N. ZSTassif, 21 May, 1869.' The four Gospels complete. Each

BOHAIRIC. 113

GrDspel is preceded by introductory matter, table of contents, &c. The
first few leaves of the book are supplied by a later hand. A note
(fol. 77 b), written by Athanasius, Bishop of Apotheke or Abutij, a.m. 1508
= 1792 A.D., states that the original date of the MS. was A. Mart. 908
(=A.D. 1192). This date is also repeated fol. 264b. It may possibly
be correct, though the MS. does not appear so old. On fol. 125 b this
same Athanasius records that he presented the book to the convent
of St. Antony, A. Mart. 1508 (= a.d. 1792). It contains Luke xxiii.
34, and the pericope John vii. 53 — viii. 11; but omits the additions
Luke xxii. 43, 44 ; John v. 3, 4.

*9. Additional 5995, fol., paper, Copt. Arab. ' brought from Egypt
by Major-General Turner, August, 1801.' The four Gospels complete.
The few first leaves of St. Matthew and the last leaf of St. John, besides
some others in the middle of the volume, are added in a later hand.
In an Arabic colophon (fol. 233b) it is stated that the book was repaired
A. Mart. 1492 (i.e. A.d. 1776) by one Ibrahim, son of Simeon, but that
its original date was more than four hundred years earlier. This is
perhaps an exaggeration. The same colophon says that it was written
for the convent of Baramus in the desert of Scete. Coptic chapters are
vrritten in uncials while the Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons
are in cursive letters. It has not Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17; nor the
pericope John vii. 53 — viii. 11; but contains Luke xxiii. 34, and the
interpolation in John v. 3, 4.

*10. Additional 14,740 A. A folio volume in which various Bohairic
and a few Armenian fragments are bound up together, of various sizes
and ages, some on vellum, some on paper. The following fragments
of the Bohairic New Testament on vellum are important on account of
their antiquity.

(i) Luke viii. 2-7, 8-10, 13-18.

(ii) 2 Cor. iv. 2 — v. 4.

(iii) Eph. ii. 10-19; ii. 21— iii. 11.

(iv) I Thess. iii. 3-6; iii. 11 — iv. 1.

The fragment from the Ephesians, the most ancient of them all,
appears from the handwriting to rival in antiquity the oldest Sahidic
fragments. They are all more or less mutilated. This volume also
contains several paper fragments of the Bohairic New Testament, belongs
ing chiefly (it would appear) to lectionaries, but these are not worth
enumerating.

*11. Oriental 1315. The four Gospels, fol., paper, Copt. Arab. The
letter to Carpianus, Eusebian tables, &c., are prefixed. This MS., dated
A.M. 924=1208 A.D., and bearing a statement of donations in a.m. 973
= 1257 A.D., is very similar in writing to Cod. Vat. ix, and the name of
the scribe George occurs in both, but the readings do not agree. This
and the two following MSS. are from Sir C. A. Murray's collection.

*I2. Oriental 1316. The four Gospels, 8vo, paper, Copt. Arab.,
illuminated, and dated a.d. 1663.

VOL. II. I

114 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.

*13. Oriental 1317. The four Gospels, 8vo, paper, Copt. Arab.,
elaborately illuminated, and dated 1814.

In the British and Foreign Bible Society's Library :

*14. The four Gospels, sm. Svosize (five leaves in a quire), paper, Copt.
Arab. The volume begins with the letter to Carpianus and the tables.
Introductions are prefixed to the Gospels. The Ammonian Sections and
Eusebian Canons are marked. This volume is a copy made from one
in the possession of the Patriarch of Cairo for the Bible Society, and
bears the date A. d. 1817 (in a colophon at the end of St. Luke). It was
partially used for the Society's edition of the Coptic Gospels {see above,
p. 107). It contains Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17, 34; John v. 3, 4;
vii. 53 — viii. 11, and seems to represent the common Coptic text of the
present day.

In private Libraries in England^:

15. The Library of the Earl of Crawford and Balcarres. Fol., paper.
The four Gospels. It was written (see colophon at the end of St. Luke)
by a scribe, Simon of Tampet, but the date a.m. 1230 = a.d. 1508
is of the donation to a monastery. Several leaves in different parts
of the volume were added much later, A. Mart. 1540 (i.e. a.d. 1824),
by one George, a monk. It has a rough picture and the Ammonian
Sections and Canons throughout. There is a tendency to Sahidic forms.
For these particulars my thanks are due to Mr. Rodwell who kindly
allowed me to see his catalogue of Lord Crawford's collection. Through
inadvertence I omitted to inspect the MS. itself.

*16. Parham 121, 122, 123 (nos. 9, 10, 11 in the printed Catalogue,
p. 29), in Lord Zouche's Library at Parham in Sussex. Fol., paper,
Copt. Arab. There is a date of donation a.m. 1211 = 1495 a.d. in 123.
These three MSS., which contain respectively the Gospels of St. Matthew,
St. Luke, and St. John, must originally have formed part of the same
volume, which St. Mark is wanted to complete. The last leaf of St. Luke
is numbered TK, the first of St. John TkK. Several pages at the
beginning and end of St. Matthew are supplied by a later hand. The
Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons are marked. These volumes
are written in a large hand, and have illuminations. They contain the
additions Luke xxiii. 34; John vii. 53 — viii. 11; but not Luke xxii.
43, 44; xxiii. 17; nor John v. 3, 4.

■^17. Parham 126 (no. 14, p. 29, in the printed Catalogue), 12mo,
paper, Copt. Arab. The four Gospels in a small neat hand, smaller than
I remember to have seen in any Coptic MS. There are two dates,
A.M. 1392=A.D. 1676, and a.m. 1446=1730 a.d., and it is probable that
the book was nearly finished at the earlier time. Introductions and tables

' My sincere thanks are due to the late Earl of Crawford and Balcarres, and
to Lord Zouche, for their kindness in allowing me free access to their valuable
collections of Coptic MSS., and in facilitating my investigations in many ways.

BOHAIRIC. 115

of contents are prefixed to each Gospel. This MS. has the additions
Luke xxiii. 34; John vii. 53 — viii. 11; but not Luke xxii. 43, 44;
xxiii. 17; nor John v. 3, 4; just as was the case with the MS. last
described, no. 16*.

^ The volume, *Parham 102, described in the printed Catalogue (no. 1, vellum,
p. 27) as a MS. of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, is really a selection of
passages taken in order from the four Gospels, with a patristic catena attached
to each. The leaves, however, are much displaced in the binding, and many
are wanting. The title to the first Gospel is 'f" epJULHnii ItXe HieT-

g^iriAXHcy nc^>.^ oTog, it4)cwcT-Hp ivre -f eKKXHci<5.,

&c. ' The interpretation of the Holy Gospel according to Matthew from numerous
doctors and luminaries of the Church.' Among the Fathers quoted I observed
Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom, Clement, the two Cyrils (of Jerusalem and of
Alexandria), Didymus, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Evagrius, the three Gregories
(Thaumaturgus, Nazianzen, and Nyssen), Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Severianus of
Gabala, Severus of Antioch (often styled simply the Patriarch), Symeon Stylites,
Timotheus, and Titus.

In the account of this MS. in the Catalogue it is stated that ' the name of the
scribe who wrote it is Sapita Leporos, a monk of the monastery, or monastic
rule, of Laura under the sway of the great abbot Macarius,' and the inference
is thence drawn that it must have been vreitten before 395, when Macarius died.
This early date, however, is at once set aside by the fact that writers who lived in
the sixth century are quoted. Professor Wright (Journal of Sacred Literature, vii.
p. 218), observing the name of Severus in the facsimile, points out the error of
date, and suggests as an explanation that the colophon (which he had not seen)
does not speak of the great Macarius, but of ' an abbot Macarius.' The fact is,
that though the great Macarius is certainly meant, there is nothing which
implies that he was then living. The scribe describes himself as i.rtOK .^A.
ni T^XenCJOpOC eT^CJC^^I, ' I the unhappy one (ToKatirapos) who
wrote it ' (which has been wrongly read and interpreted as a proper name Sapita
Leporos). He then gives his name -©60^ IlOTf Cipi (Theodorus of Busiris ?)
and adds, ^I^.^"JU^.^tt[^. XSLJULOXl^yjOC flTTe -fXi-Tpi.

eOOTi-K rtXe nmicy'f" .4.^.S.^. JU.^.K^.pI, 'the unworthy monk
of the holy laura of the great abbot Macarius.' He was merely an inmate of the
monastery of St. Macarius ; see the expression quoted from the Vat. MS. Ixi in
Tattam's Lexicon, p. 842. This magnificent MS. is dated a.m. 604 = a.d. 888
and has been published by Professor De Lagarde ; but its value may not
be very great for the Bohairic Version, as it is perhaps translated from the
Greek.

The *Parham MS. 106 (no. 5, p. 28) is wrongly described as containing the
Gospel of St. John. The error is doubtless to be explained by the fact that the
name lUJi-ItltOT occurs at the bottom of one of the pages ; but the manuscript
is not Biblical. Another MS. (no. 13, p. 29) is described as ' St. Matthew with
an Arabic translation, very large folio : a modern MS. copied at Cairo from an
antient one in the library of the Coptic Patriarch.' I was not able to find
this, when through the courtesy of Lord Zouohe I had access to the Parham
collection.

I a

Il6 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.

In the Paris National Library :

*18. Cod. Copt. 13, fol., vellum. The four Gospels. A very fine
manuscript, elaborately illuminated, with pictures of the principal scenes
in the Gospel history. It has the Ammonian Sections and Eusebian
Canons in the margin, with the tables at the end of the Gospels. The
writer, Michael, bishop of Damietta, gives his name in a colophon at
the end of St. Mark. The date at the end of St. Matthew is 894
(or A.D. 1178); of the other Gospels 896 (or a.d. 1180). This MS.
is erroneously dated 1173 in the Catalogue, and 1164 in Le Long. The
additions Luke xxiii. 17, 34; and John vii. 53 — viii. 11, are part
of the original text. Also Luke xxii. 43, 44, is written prima manu
and in the text, but in smaller characters so as to make a distinction.
On the other hand the interpolation John v. 3, 4, is wanting.

*19. Cod. Copt. 14, fol., paper, Copt. Arab. The four Gospels.
It has the Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons, and two other
capitulations besides. It contains Luke xxiii. 34, but has not the
additions Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17; John v. 3, 4 ; vii. 53 — viii. 11.
It is referred in the Catalogue to the thirteenth century, which is pro-
bably about its date.

*20. Cod. Copt. 15 (Colbert 2913, Reg. 330. 3), 4to. The scribe
Victor gives his name in a colophon at the end. It belongs to the more
ancient Coptic MSS., though no date is given. The Ammonian Sections
and Eusebian Canons are given. The passages Luke xxii. 43, 44 ;
xxiii. 17, 34; Joh. v. 3, 4, are added in the margin, but form no part
of the original text. On the other hand John vii. 53 — viii. 11 now forms
part of the text, but the leaf containing it and several which follow have
been supplied by a much later hand. This is the case also with the
beginning of St. Matthew and the end of St. John.

*21. Cod. Copt. 16 (De La Mare 579, Reg. 330. 2), 4to, Copt. Arab.,
paper. Owing to the Calendar at the end beginning 1204 a.d.^a.m. 920,
it is assigned to the thirteenth century. It has the Ammonian Sections
and Eusebian Canons and (like Cod. Copt. 14) the Greek and Coptic
chapters. It contains Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17, 34; but not John
V. 3, 4 ; nor John vii. 53 — viii. 11.

*22. Cod. Copt. 59 (St. German. 25), ' Ex Bibl. Coisl. olim Seguer.'
Fol., paper. The four Gospels. It has the Ammonian Sections and
Eusebian Canons, and two other capitulations besides. The date at the
end is given as 946 A.m. i. e. 1230 a.d. It does not contain the addi-
tions, Luke xxii. 43, 44 ; xxiii. 17, 34. The earlier part of St. John
containing the test passages is wanting.

*23. Cod. Copt. 60, fol., paper, a late MS. The four Gospels. On
a fly-leaf is written, ' Quatuor evangelia Coptice Venetiis emta per me
Er. Bernardum de Montfaucon anno 1698, die 11 Augusti.' It has
the Ammonian Sections and Canons. The additions, Luke xxii. 43, 44 ;
xxiii. 17; John v. 3, 4, are wanting; but Luke xxiii. 34; John
vii. 53— viii. 11 stand as part of the text.

*24. Cod. Copt. 61, 8vo, paper, St. John's Gospel. A late MS,

BOHAIRIC. 117

The leaves are bound up in the wrong order, and some are wanting.
It contains John vii. 53 — viii. 11.

*25. Cod. Copt. 62, 4to, paper. St. John's Gospel. Arabic words
are written interlinearly in the earlier part, but not throughout. It has
not V. 3, 4 nor vii. 53 — viii. 11. It appears to be of fair antiquity.

In the Berlin Royal Library :

26. MS. Orient. Diez. A. Fol. 40, described by Schwartze (Praef.
p. xiii sq.), who collated it for his edition. He says (p. xx), ' decimum,
saeculum non superat, dummodo aequet.' The great body of this MS.
is written by two different scribes, both of whom perhaps wrote in the
thirteenth century; the two first and two last leaves are supplied by
a third and more recent hand. Of the two earlier scribes the second
was not contemporary with the first, as the similarity of the paper and
ink might suggest, but the MS. was already mutilated when it came into
his hands, and he supplied the missing leaves. The date of a. m. 1125=
1409 A.D. occurs in an Arabic statement but with no mention of writing.
There is a tendency to Sahidic forms, more especially in the parts
supplied by the second scribe. This MS. is generally free from the
interpolated additions, e. g. Luke xxii. 43, 44 ; xxiii. 17, 34 ; John v. 3, 4;
vii. 53 — viii. 1 1 ; and seems to be of high value.

27. MS. Orient. Quart. 165, 166, 167, 168, four transcripts by
Petraeus, also collated by Schwartze {see Praef., p. ix). The first (165)
has the lessons for Sundays and Festivals from the four Gospels ; the
other three (166, 167, 168) contain the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark,
and St. Luke respectively, with the exception of the parts included
in the ecclesiastical lessons. These transcripts were made in the year
1662, from a MS. which Petraeus describes as 'vetustum' and 'vetus-
tissimum,' and which is now in the Bodleian Library (Maresc. 5).

In the Gbttingen University Library :

28. Orientalis 125, described incorrectly by Lagarde, Orientalia,
Heft i. p. 4. The four Gospels, written A. Mart. 1073 (a.d. 1357).
Some portions are ■written in another hand and on different paper from
the rest when the book was restored iu a.d. 1774, but the greater part
is of 1357.

In the Vatican Library at Eome :

29. Copt. 8, fol., paper, Copt. Arab. The four Gospels. Some leaves
at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end have been supplied more
recently. The scribe of these later leaves was one Arcadius, son of
John, who gives the date 1303 (i.e. ad. 1587). The body of the MS.
is ascribed by Assemani to the fourteenth century. For further par-
ticulars see Mai, Coll. Vet. Script., v. 2, p. 120 sg. From the collection
of I. B. Eaymund (no. i), left by will to the Vatican Library.

30. Copt. 9 (Raymund iv), fol., paper, Copt. Arab., with fine illumina-
tions. The four Gospels, preceded by the letter of Eusebius to Carpianus
and the Eusebian tables. It was given to the Monastery of St. Antony

Il8 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.

in the Arabian desert, A. Mart. 986 (=a.d. 1270), by one Michael
Abu-Khaltkah, as recorded in a colophon written by Gabriel, who was
patriarch of Alexandria at the time. Assemani states that this Michael
was also the writer of the MS., but more probably the writer was
named George and wrote the book in A. d. 1205=a. m. 921. After the
plunder of the monastery by the Arabs, the MS. came into the possession
of two other patriarchs of the Copts, John (a.d. 1506) and Gabriel
(a.d. 1526), and was afterwards placed (a.D. 1537) in the Church of
SS. Sergius and Bacchus at Alexandria. These facts are stated in other
colophons. See Mai, I.e., p. 122 sq.

31. Copt. 10 (Eaymund vi), 4to, paper, Copt. Arab. The four Gospels;
ascribed to the fourteenth century by Assemani. See Mai, I.e., p. 125.
There are dates of births and marriages, the earliest being a.d. 1488 =
A.M. 1204.

32. Copt. 11 (Petri de Valle vi), fol., paper, Copt. Arab. The
Gospel of St. John. It bears the date 1062 (i. e. A. d. 1346). See Mai,
I.e., p. 125.

33. British Museum; Orient. 3381, fol., paper. The four Gospels.
Is not dated, though the writer gives his name as Victor. It is probably
of the thirteenth century, and somewhat resembles the writing of Paris 59.
The book was restored in a.d. 1793 under the patronage of Athanasius,
Bishop of Abu Tij. There is also record of a collation by a priest in
A.D. 1801, while a note in English says that the MS. came from Esneh
and was bought of the Bishop of Luxor by Mr. Lieder, who sold it in
1864 to Mr. Geden, from whom it passed to the Museum.

34. Paris; Copt. 14 A, Copt. Arab., fol., paper. The four Gospels. Is
dated a.m. 1309=a. d. 1593. This date is mentioned in Paris 14 as being
the time of a work which was performed on that book, and there can be
little doubt that this work was the copying of 14 a from 14.

35. Paris; Copt. 60, fol., paper. The four Gospels. This MS. is not
dated, but is not ancient, and appears to be a copy of MS. Diez in its
present double form as far as the end of St. Luke. St. John is by
another hand, and may be of earlier date. The former copier was
a deacon, Abu al Monna.

36. Paris, L'Institut Catholique de, Copt. Arab., 4to, paper. The four
Gospels. It is dated a.m. 966 = a.d. 1250. The writer Gabriel calls
himself monk and priest, and afterwards became Patriarch. A donation
of the book to Church of St. Mercurius is recorded in 1750 A.D. The
book was brought from Egypt by M. Amelineau and sold to the Institute
a few years ago. There are very interesting miniatures, which have
been partly published in the Album of M. I'Abb^ Hyvernat.

B. The Pauline Epistles, Catholie Epistles, and Acts.

In the Bodleian Library at Oxford are :

1. Hunt. 43, fol., paper, Copt. Arab., containing Paul. Ep., Cath. Ep.,
Acts, and Apocalypse. The paging ceases at the end of the Acts, and

BOHAIRIC. 119

between the Acts and Apocalypse are some blank pages. I did not,
however, notice any difference in the handwriting of the two parts. The
date given at the end of the Acts is 1398 (i. e. A. d. 1682).

*2. Hunt. 203, 4to, paper. The Pauline Epistles. The beginning,
Eom. i. 1 — ii. 26, and the end, 2 Tim. iv. 4 — Tit. ii. 6, are in a later
hand. This later transcriber ends abruptly in the middle of a page with
eeponr, Tit. ii. 6. Thus the end of Titus and the whole of Philemon
are wanting. There are several lacunae in the body of the work owing
to lost leaves. The description in Wilkins is most inaccurate.

*3. Hunt. 122, 4to, paper, illuminated. The Pauline Epistles. The
beginning and end are wanting. The MS. begins with Horn. viii. 29,
and ends with 2 Tim. i. 2. The date is given at the end of 2 Corinthians
as 1002 of the Diocletian era, i.e. A. d. 1286. The scribe gives his
name as ' noXqi.2£ the son of the bishop.'

In the British Museum :

*4. Orient. 424, 4to, paper, Copt. Arab., containing Paul. Ep., Cath.
Ep., Acts. At the end of the Pauline Epistles, and at the end of the
Acts, are two important Arabic colophons, in which the pedigree of the
MS. is given. From these we learn that both portions of this MS. were
written A. Mart. 1024 (=a.d. 1308) by one Abu Said. They were
copied, however, from a previous MS. in the handwriting of the patriarch
Abba Gabriel and bearing the date A. Mart. 966 (=a.d. 1250). This
Abba Gabriel stated that ' he took great pains to copy it accurately and
correct it, both as to the Coptic and Arabic texts, to the best of human
ability.' This MS. of Abba Gabriel again was copied from two earlier
MSS., that of the Pauline Epistles in the handwriting of Abba Yuhanna,
bishop of Sammanud, that of the Catholic Epistles and Acts in the
handwriting of ' Jurja ibn Saksik (1) the famous scribe.' This MS.
belonged to Archdeacon Tattam, and was purchased for the British
Museum at the sale of his books. It is the MS. designated ' tattamianus '
in the edition of Boetticher, who made use of a collation obtained by
Schwartze. The corrections in this MS. (designated t* in Boetticher)
are written in red ink.

5. Oriental 1318, ff. 294, fo!., 4to, Copt. Arab., dated A. Mart.
1132 = A.D. 1416.

In private collections in England :

*6. Parham 124 (no. 12, p. 29, in the printed Catalogue), foL,
paper, Copt. Arab. Paul. Ep., Cath. Ep., Acts. There are several
blank leaves at the end of the Pauline Epistles, and the numbering of
the leaves begins afresh with the Catholic Epistles, so that this MS.
is two volumes bound together. They are, however, companion volumes
and in the same handwriting. This is doubtless the MS. of which
Schwartze's collation was used by Boetticher {see above, p. 109), and
which he calls ' curetonianus.' I am informed that it is designated
simply cur. by Schwartze himself. It certainly never belonged to
Cureton, but was brought with the other Parham MSS. by the Hon.

I20 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.

E. Curzon (afterwards Lord Zouche) from the East, and ever afterwards
belonged to his library. Boetticher's designation therefore is probably
to be explained by a confusion of names. I gather moreover from
private correspondence which I have seen, that some of Mr. Curzon's
Coptic MSS. were in the keeping of Cureton at the British Museum
about the time when Schwartze's collation was made, and this may have
been one. If so, the mistake is doubly explained. I infer the identity
of this MS. with the curetonianus of Boetticher for the following reasons :

(1) Having made all enquiries, I cannot find that Dr. Cureton ever
possessed a Coptic MS. of the whole or part of the New Testament ;

(2) The MS. in question must have been in England, and no other
English MS. satisfies the conditions. My first impression was that
the MS. next described, Parham 121, would prove to be the curetoniawixs,
for I found between the leaves an envelope addressed to Mr. Cureton
at the British Museum, and bearing the post mark, January, 1849 ; this
fact indicating that it had been in Mr. Cureton's hands about the time
when Schwartze's collation was made. But a comparison of the readings
soon showed that this identification must be abandoned. (3) The cipher
which Boetticher gives for the date is also found in this MS. in two
places, after the Pauline Epistles and again after the Acts. This
coincidence is the more remarkable as the cipher is not very intelligible.
(4) The_ readings of our MS., Parham 124, where I compared them,
agree with those of Boetticher's curetonianus, with an occasional excep-
tion which may be accounted for by the inaccuracy of the collation.
This is the case with crucial readings, as for instance the marginal
alternative in Acts vii. 39. At the same time Schwartze's collation,
if Boetticher has given its readings fully, must have been very imperfect.
In a short passage which I collated I found more variations omitted
than there were verses.

*7. Parham 125 (no. 13, p. 29, printed Catalogue), small 4to, paper,
in a very neat hand, with illuminations, Copt. Arab. It contains the
Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles, and Acts.

In the National Library at Paris :

*8. Copt. 17, fol., paper, Copt. Arab., described in the Catalogue
as 'antiquus et elegantissime scriptus.' It contains the fourteen Pauline
Epistles. Is this the MS. collated by Boetticher for these Epistles and
designated p by him ?

*9. Copt. 63, small fol., paper. 'Emta per me Bernardum de Mont-
faucon Venetiis anno 1698, 1 1 Augusti.' It contains the fourteen Pauline
Epistles, and is dated at the end ^..^-0£^, i.e. 1376 = a.d. 1660.

*10. Copt. 64, fol., paper, Copt. Arab. 'Manuscrit de la Bibliothfeque
de Saumaise acquis par I'abb^ Sallier pour le B. E. en 1752.' It con-
tains the fourteen Pauline Epistles.

11. Copt. 66, 4to, paper, with occasional Arabic notes in the margin.
It belonged to the Coislin library, and previously to the Seguerian'
It contains the Catholic Epistles and Acts. The date of its completion

BOHAIRIC. 121

is given at the end as 1325, i. e. a.d. 1609. A collation of this MS.
was used by Boetticher for his edition, and is designated ^; by him.

*12. Copt. 65, fol., paper. 'Emta Venetiis per me Fr. I. Bernardum
de Montfaucon anno 1698, 2 Augusti.' This volume contains the Apo-
calypse, Catholic Epistles, and Acts. It consists of two parts, ff. 1-32
containing the Apocalypse, and ff. 33-102 containing the Catholic
Epistles and Acts. The two parts are written on different paper,
and apparently in different hands. At the end of the Apocalypse
the date is j^iven 1376 = A. d. 1660. At the end of the Acts also
the same date 1376 is given, and the scribe there mentions his name

ICU^ninpecK'T'TepOC. Boetticher collated this MS. for his edi-
tion and designates it m.

In the Eoyal Library at Berlin :

13. Orient. 616, fol., Copt- Arab., containing the Epistles to the
Colossians, Thessalonians, Philemon, Hebrews, Timothy, Titus.

14. Orient. 116, fol., Copt. Arab., containing the Epistles to the
Romans and Corinthians.

15. Orient. 169, 4to. A transcript of the Epistles to the Ephesians
and Philippians in Coptic, made by Petraeus at Leyden in 1660.

These three were collated by Boetticher, from whom I have extracted
this meagre account, which is all that he gives. He designates them 6.

In the Vatican:

16. Copt. 12 (I. B. Eaymund ii), fol., paper, Copt. Arab. The Pauline
Epistles, Catholic Epistles, and Acts ; ascribed by Assemani to the
fourteenth century. In this MS. the Epistle to the Hebrews stands after
the Epistle to Philemon, thus departing froin the usual Bohairic order,

III iliiTirr, nn fii See Mai, Coll. Vet. Script., v. 2, p. 125 sq.

17. Copt. 13 (I. B. Eaymund iii), fol., paper, Copt. Arab., ascribed
by Assemani to the thirteenth century. The fourteen Pauline Epistles.
See Mai, I.e., p. 127 sq.

18. Copt. 14 (I. B. Eaymund v), 4to, paper, Copt. Arab., containing
the Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles, and Acts. It was written by
Michael the monk of the city of Bembge in the year 1074 (i.e. a.d. 1358),
except the last leaf, which was supplied in 1220 (i.e. a.d. 1504). See

-Mai, I. c, p. 128 sq.

C The Apocalypse.
In England :

*1. Bodleian, Hunt. 43, already described under Epistles 1.
*2. Library of Lord Crawford and Balcarres. A very small folio,
paper, with illuminations, Copt. Arab. 'f^LnOKi.XlJm.T^IC KTe

122 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.

ItUi-nitHC The Apocalypse itself is followed by ' The Benediction
which is read before the Holy Apocalypse.' The date 1091 (i.e.
A. D. 1375) is given at the end of the Apocalypse, where also the scribe
mentions his name Peter. On a later page he _ describes himself as
a monk and presbyter. There are corrections in the margin of the
Apocalypse, some in red, others in black ink. Some of these contain
various readings, e. g. x. 11 neXUOOT X/youo-i for IieiC-Lq ^ey"- This
MS. once belonged to Tattam.

*3. Parham 123 (no. 15, p. 29 in the printed Catalogue). Small
foL, paper, rudely written in a recent hand. Copt. Arab. It contains
the Apocalypse, followed by the ' Book of the Holy Benediction, &o.'
The scribe, who has evidently a very indifferent knowlege of Coptic,
gives his name as Matthew the son of Abraham, and states that the
work was finished ^ert'f pOJULnmcgopeitrtlJUt^pTTpOCee??.
Tliis ought to be the year 1105 of the Martyrs (=A. D. 1389); but the
MS. must be later than this date. The colophon itself is perhaps copied
from an earlier MS.

*4. Parham 124 (no. 16, p. 29 in the printed Catalogue). A large
12mo, paper, Copt. Arab. It contains about fifteen lines in a page, and
about eleven letters in a line. Two or three pages towards the beginning
are in a later hand. The date is given at the end, A. Mart. 1037 =
A. D. 1321. This Apocalypse is not Sahidic, as described in the printed
Catalogue, but Bohairic.

At Paris :

*5. Copt. 65, already described under Epistles 11.

*6. Copt. 91, 8vo, paper, Copt. Arab., containing the Apocalypse alone,

'f^.noKi.XTJu.Tlfic riTe laj^-nnnc meT^-weXicTHC.

It is dated at the end 1117 (?=a.d. 1401).

In the printed Catalogue *Copt. 34 (Delamare 581, Eeg. 342. 3)
is also stated to contain ' Apocalypsis e Graeca lingua in Copticam con-
versa,' but there seems to be some mistake about this.

At Rome :
^ *7. Anglican Library, C. i. 9. The Apocalypse in Copt. Arab.

'fi.noKi.A'if'tic uTe icJoi. ixieTfi-vreXicTHc ovog,

iLTlOC'ToXoC, &c,, said to belong to the fifteenth century.

8. Library of the Propaganda, large 8vo, paper, in a modern hand.
Copt. Arab. The Apocalypse somewhat mutilated. It contains i. 12 —
ii. 26, and iii. 9 — xxii. 12. It is briefly described among the Borgian
MSS. by Zoega, p. 3.

9. Vatican, Copt. 15, fob, paper, Copt. Arab. The Apocalypse followed
by ' Ordo dominicae palmarum ' (fol. 59). Referred by Assemani to
the fourteenth century. See Mai, Coll. Vet. Script., v. 2, p. 130.

10. Vatican, Copt. 16 (I. B. Raymund, no. xi), 4to, paper, Copt.

BOHAIRIC. 123

Arab. The Apocalypse, followed by a Benedictio. It was written by
one John son of Abul-Menna in 1061 (i. e. A. d. 1345). The scribe prays
' omnes amicos suos sinceros . . . ut castigent atque corrigant errata illius
pro sua prudentia, quoniam ausus sum fungi muuere mihi ignoto.' See
Mai, I. c, p. 1 30 sq.^

Besides these MSS. of different parts of the New Testament there is
also a considerable number of Bohairic Lectionaries in the different
libraries of Europe.

From this account of the MSS. it appears that, with the single
exception of the Apocalypse, the Bohairic New Testament, as
far back as we can trace its history, contained all the books
of our present Canon. Nor have I noticed any phenomena in
the language of the several books, which point to any want of
uniformity or separation of date ; though it is possible that
a more thorough investigation and a more complete mastery of
the language might reveal such. It seems clear, however, that
the Apocalypse had not a place among the Canonical books.
In the majority of cases it is contained in a separate MS. In
the exceptions which I have investigated, where it is bound up
with other books (the MSS. numbered 1, 12, of the Epistles and
Acts), it is distinguished from them in some marked way ; and
probably this will be found to be the case with any which
have not yet been examined. In short, there is not a single
authenticated case of a MS. in which it is treated as of
equal authority with the other Canonical books. Moreover
in Copto-Arabic vocabularies it is omitted from its proper
place at the end of the New Testament, all the other books
being taken in order. This depreciation of the Apocalypse may
perhaps be taken as indicating the date of the completion or
codification of the Bohairic version. The earlier Alexandrian
writers, Clement and Origen, in the first decades of the third
century, quote the Apocalypse without hesitation as the work of
St. John. The later Alexandrian Church also from the close
of the third century onward seems to have had no doubt about '
its Apostolic authority (see Westcott, Canon, p. 321). But
about the middle of the third century doubts were entertained
respecting its authorship, to which expression was given by
Dionysius of Alexandria (flor. A. D. 233-265), though even

' The above account has been throughout revised by the Rev. G. Horner, who
has collated or examined all MSS. of the Bohairic versions in European libraries.

124 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.

Dionysius did not deny its canonicity. The difficulty, however,
may have been powerful enough to cause its exclusion from
the Egyptian Canon.

The order of the several parts of the New Testament in the
MSS. is (1) Gospels, (2) Pauline Epistles, (3) Catholic Epistles,
(4) Acts. The Gospels occur in their common order. It is
remarkable, however, that in the vocabularies St. John frequently
stands &st, so that we get the order, John, Matthew, Mark,
Luke, which (with the doubtful exception of the Sahidic) is
unique. Of this, however, there is no trace in the MSS. ; and, as
some of these must carry the tradition further back than the
vocabularies, the arrangement is perhaps to be explained in some
other way. The Pauline Epistles include the Hebrews, which
is placed after i, a Thessalonians and before i, 2 Timothy^, as in
the Greek MSS. «ABC, &c. (see p. 71). This accords with the
general opinion of the Alexandrian school, which regarded this
Epistle as the work of St. Paul (see Westcott, Canon, p. 323 sq.).
In other respects the familiar order is observed in the Pauline
Epistles, as is also the case with the Catholic Epistles ^.

The Bohairic version is for the most part a faithful render-
ing of the original, and the Egyptian language which by this
time had borrowed largely from the Greek vocabulary is fairly
adequate for the purpose. This version therefore may generally
be consulted even for minute variations in the text. The con-
necting particles are commonly observed ; and as the language
has both definite and indefinite articles, it may be employed,
though with some caution, by the textual critic where other
versions fail him. In one point, however, it is quite useless.
When the question lies between a participle and a finite verb in
the construction of a sentence, the looseness of the Egyptian
syntax will seldom afford any clue to the reading which the
translator had before him. Perhaps the weakest point in the
language is the absence of a passive voice, for which the third
person plural active, used impersonally, acts as a substitute.
This produces strange awl^wardnesses of expression. Thus
John i. 6 a.TTea-TaXii.evos irapa ©eoC is rendered 'whom they sent
from God,' 6 ^.TfOTOpnq eKoXg^SXen cf)'f, and i. 17

' The MSS. 7 and 16 are exceptions.

^ No weight can be given to the abnormal order in no. 12, until we know
something more of this MS., which is perhaps a late transcript.

BOHAIRIC. 125

6 vo/xos Sia Moova-etas ebodr) 'The law they gave it by Moses,'
ni rtoAJLOc ^.•^fTHIq e£.oXg,n"ert julojychc. Another
grave defect is the want of a word corresponding to the simple
meaning of ex^Lv, which has to be rendered by various expedients
according to the context.

To the adoption of Greek words there seems to be hardly any
limit but the caprice of the translator. Already in the demotic
writing we find a few of these foreign intruders naturalized ;
but in the Coptic, as used for ecclesiastical purposes, they occur
in the gi'eatest profusion. Very frequently their adoption cannot
be explained by any exigencies of translation.- Thus for instance
the translator will sometimes render one Greek word by another,
e.g. John xiii. 5, vLVTTqp by KaKAvn) or XeK&vr]; Acts xix. 40,
eyKoKeiv by Karrj-yopdv ; xxviii. 17, 'i6os by ffvvrjdeia. Thus again
he will diversify the rendering in the same passage, using
indifierently the Greek and the Egyptian word for the same
original, e.g. (^X\rT and ^Ip^.^Irt {-neipaCew), Matt. iv. 1, 3;
xpox and cnepJU-A., John viii. 33, 37; nOTpo and Keci.p
(Kato-ap), John xix. 12, 15 ; I^ and 2^eJULU3It {paiii.6vi.ov), Matt.
viii. 16, 28, 33. And again and again Greek words are used,
where common Egyptian equivalents were ready to hand. The
conjunctions aXka, be, ydp, ovv, were doubtless needed to supply
a want in the Egyptian language, which, like the Hebrew and
Aramaic, was singularly deficient in connecting-particles ; but
we should hardly have looked for such combinations as oimus
(ifVTOi, TTo'crq) fxaXXov, p.7\Ti, ov ydp, ov^ on, on /^lev ydp, Kai ye, KaWoi,
ov fiovov hi, e^' ocrov, ir&s ovv, tva k6.v, tva ixtj-ticos, jxevovvye, and the
like. Nor should we expect to find Greek terms introduced
with such reckless prodigality as in the following sentences :
John xviii. 3, rtejut gjA.tt4>«i.noc neju. g,i.rt X^,JUL^^.c
neju. &^it g,onXott ; Acts xxiii. 8, XKJJLon -&.iti.cTi.cic
otTi.e ^^vve'koc o-irs^e niteTJUt^ ; Acts xxvii. 13, K<LT«Ln^
T-J-n e 4)oittix, e ep n^pi.xi-«^^?i« ^ert ot XTA«.Htt;
Eom. vi. 13, nexeit JuteXoc it ^oXnort rcTe -f ^t^ikh..

[No definite discussion on the history or critical value of the
Bohairic version is possible until the edition which is being
prepared by the Rev. G. Horner is published ; based as it is on
a collation of all known MSS.

An opinion which at present seems to prevail largely among

126 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.

scholars is that of Stern (Z. A. S. 20, 1882, p. 202), who dates it to
the fourth or fifth century, and ascribes it to the literary activity
of the monks of the Natron Lakes. He has further suggested that
it and the Sahidic may both be derived from, or at any rate
connected with, the Akhmim version (Z. A. S. 24, 1886, p. 134).

The last statement may be definitely dismissed ; it is based
upon a single sentence quoted from an apocryphal book of the
Old Testament, and is definitely disproved in the case of the New
Testament by a comparison of the two versions. They are not
only diSerent translations, but are based on a different Greek
text. The first statement is apparently based upon language,
and has undoubtedly an element of truth in it. The language
of the version as we have it was probably revised and corrected,
and reduced to a fixed orthography and a more definite form,
but even here it is not possible to speak quite positively, and we
know that there are considerable variations in orthography
preserved in some of the MSS. which may represent the tradition
of different monasteries. But, granting this, it does not by any
means follow that there was not a Bohairic dialect and a Bohairic
version at an earlier date, which is closely represented by this, as
the Akhmim version was represented by the Sahidic, as regards
the Greek text implied. In favour of an early version in the
dialect of Lower Egypt is first the apriori argument of the proba-
bility of Christianity spreading earliest in the Delta. We know
that by the middle of the third century it had spread among the
native population of Alexandria (Dion. Al. ap. Eus. 'H. E.' vi. 41),
and probably had done so in the second century. If Greek had
spread so little in the Delta in the fourth or fifth century as to
make a Bohairic version necessary, it is not likely to have been
more widely prevalent in the third. On these grounds then we
should naturally expect Christianity to spread earliest among the
native populations of the districts round Alexandria, and also
that the New Testament or a portion of it would be translated
very early into their language. Nor again does there seem any
evidence for deriving the Bohairic dialect from the Akhmimish.
It is true that the latter represents the language of Egypt in an
earlier form, but it is not an earlier form of Bohairic.

To these a priori and negative considerations must be added
the positive argument of Krall (Mitt. i. p. 111). He appears to
have discovered earlier forms of the Bohairic dialect, and in

BOHAIRIC. 127

addition points out that some of the commonest abbreviations
in Coptic MSS. could only have been derived from the Bohairic,
which seems to show that it was for Bohairic that the alphabet
was first used. And this in the New Testament at any rate is
supported by the text of the version. A study of this has shown
that in the form in which we possess it in most printed editions
and late MSS., although as a whole its agreement with the oldest
Greek MSS. is undoubted, it contains a considerable number of
later additions which agree with the traditional text. But, as
Bishop Lightfoot showed, these clearly formed no part of the
original Bohairic version, and subsequent investigation has made
it clear that the evidence in favour of this statement is even
stronger than he represented it {see Sanday, Appendices ad
Novum Testamentum, App. III. p. 183 sq.). The original
Bohairic text then represents a very pure tradition, untouched
by the so-called Western additions which are found in the
Sahidic version, and it is difficult to believe that a version
so singularly free from these should be later than the Sahidic.
Christianity spread in the Thebaid certainly as early as the
beginning of the third century (Eus. ' H. E.' vi. 1), and that century
is the period to which internal evidence would assign the origin
of the Sahidic version. An even earlier date is probably
demanded both for the extension of Christianity in the Delta
and for the text of the Bohairic version.]

(3) The Sahidic {or Thebaic) Version.

The Sahidic version did not attract attention till a compara-
tively late date. When Wilkins published what was then called
the Coptic New Testament, he mentioned having found among the
Oxford MSS. two which he described as ' lingua plane a reliquis
MSS. Copticis, quae unquam vidi, diversa ' (Praef. p. vii). These
are written in the Thebaic or Sahidic dialect, of which as we may
infer from his language, he did not even know the existence.
After no long time, however, we find La Croze and Jablonski,
with other Egyptian scholars, turning their attention to the
dialect of Upper Egypt : and at length in 1778, C. G. Woide issued
a prospectus in which he announced his intention of publishing
from Oxford MSS. the fragments of the New Testament 'juxta
interpretationem dialecti Superioris Aegypti, quae Thebaidica

128 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.

seu Sahidica appellatur.' In the same year he gave to the world
some various readings of this version in J. A. Cramer's ' Beytrage
zur Befbrderung theologischer und andrer wichtigen Kenntnisse,'
Pt. iii, Kiel u. Hamburg, 1778. But before Woide's work
appeared he was partially anticipated by other labourers in the
same field.

In the same year 1778 appeared a grammar of the two
Egyptian dialects by Eaphael Tuki, Roman Bishop of Arsinoe,
with the title ' Rudimenta Linguae Coptae sive Aegyptiacae ad
usum Collegii Urbani de Propaganda Fide, Romae.' It contains
profuse quotations from the Sahidic version of the Old and New
Testaments. This work, which preserves a large number of
passages not to be found elsewhere, has been strangely neglected
by textual critics ^. Caution, however, must be observed in the
use of it, as the passages are apparently obtained, at least in
many instances, not directly from MSS. of the version itself,
but through the medium of Arabo-Egyptian grammars and
vocabularies; nor is Tuki's work generally at all accurate or
critical ^.

In 1785, J. A. Mingarelli published two fasciculi of an account
of the Egyptian MSS. in the Nanian Library under the title
' Aegyptiorum codicum reliquiae Venetiis in Bibliotheca Naniana
asservatae, Bononiae.' In these he printed at length two portions
of the Sahidic New Testament, Matt, xviii. 27 — xxi. 15, and
John ix. 17 — xiii. 1.

In 1789, A. A. Giorgi (Georgius), an Augustinian eremite,
brought out a work entitled ' Fragmentum Evangelii S. Joannis
Graeco-Copto-Thebaicum Saeculi iv. &c., Romae.' This volume
contains John vi. 21-58, and vi. 68 — viii. 23, introduced by an
elaborate preface and followed by other matter. The MS. from
which they are taken belonged to the Borgian collection at
Velletri, and has been described already among the Greek MSS.,
p. 141 sq. It is ascribed to the fourth or fifth century.

' It is used in the Apocalypse by Tregelles, and apparently also by Tisohendorf
in his eighth edition ; and in the Rev. S. C. Malan's ' Gospel according to
St. John, translated from the Eleven Oldest Versions except the Latin,' London,
1862, all Tuki's Sahidic fragments of this Evangelist are included.

'^ See Miinter, De Indole, &c., Praef., p. iv. Schwartze (Quat. Evang. p. xx) says,
' Praeterquam quod sicut omnes Tukii libri soatent vitiis, etiam angustioris sunt
fidei Rudimenta, Sahidicis locis partim e versione Arabica a Tukio concinnatis."
I do not know on what grounds Schwartze makes this last statement.

SAHIDIC. 129

In the same year, 1789, additional fragments of this version
from other Borgian MSS. were published by F. C. C. H. Miinter
in a volume bearing the title, ' Commentatio de Indole Versionis
Novi Testamenti Sahidicae. Accedunt Fragmenta Epistolarum
Pauli ad Timotheum ex membranis Sahidicis Musei Borgiani
Velitris. Hafniae.' The fragments referred to are i Tim. i. 14 —
iii. 16 ; vi. 4-21 ; a Tim. i. 1-16, Miinter gives also some various
readings of this version in different parts of the four Gospels,
taken likewise from the Borgian MSS.

Lastly ; in 1790 MingarelH published a third fasciculus of his
work on the Egyptian MSS. in the Nanian Library, and in it he
printed another important fragment ,of this version, Mark xi. 29 —
XV. 32. This third part is very rarely met with, and I have not
seen a copy.

Meanwhile Woide was busily engaged on his edition, and had
already advanced far when his labours were interrupted by death
in May, 1790. His papers "vyere placed in the hands of H. Ford,
Professor of Arabic at Oxford, who after several years completed
the work. It was published with the title, 'Appendix ad
Editionem Novi Testamenti Graeci e Codice MS. Alexandrine
a C. G. Woide descripti, in qua continent]i;ir Fragmenta Novi
Testamenti juxta interpretationem Dialeoti Superioris Aegypti
quae Thebaidica vel Sahidica appellatur, &c. Oxoniae, 1799.'
Woide's materials were :

1. Several MSS. of the Huntington collection in the Bodleian.
These consist of (a) Two folio lectionaries on paper (Hunt. 3,
Hunt. 5) ; (6) A folio likewise on paper, containing fragments
of St. John's Gospel (Hunt. 4) ; (c) An 8vo, containing fragments
of the Acts and Catholic Epistles (Hunt. 394). Woide gives as
the date A. Mart. 1041, and A.D, 1315, ' si recte conjicio,' but the
two are not reconcileable ; (d) A 4to on paper (Hunt. 393), written
A. Mart. 1109 (i.e. A.D. 1393) and containing 'De Mysterio
literarum Graecarum Discursus Gnostici,' the work of one Seba
an anchorite {see Ford's ' Praef ,' p. vi. sq., and p. [31], note a).

2. A very ancient papyrus belonging to the famous traveller
Bruce, who had brought it from Upper Egypt. It contains two
Gnostic works, in which are quoted passages from the Old and
New Testaments. It is now in the Bodleian ^.

^ This has now been published. By Am61ineau, Notice sur le Papyrus
Onostique Bruce. Teste et Traduction, Notices et Bxtraits de la Biblioth^que
VOL. II. K

130 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.

3. An ancient vellum MS. containing the Gnostic treatise
' Pistis Sophia,' then belonging to Askew and now in the British
Museum. It quotes some passages of the Old and New Testaments.
The ' Pistis Sophia ' has been since transcribed by Schwartze, and
published from his papers by Petermann after his death (1853).

4. Several fragments belonging to Woide himself, having been
transmitted to him from Upper Egypt while he was employed on
the work. Some are Sahidic; others Graeco-Sahidic. These formed
a highly important accession to his materials. They now belong to
the Clarendon Press at Oxford, and are deposited in the Bodleian.

One of these, a Graeco-Sahidic MS., said to belong to the fourth
or fifth century, has been already described (Evan. T). But I am
unable to assent to the opinion which is maintained by Tregelles
and Tischendorf, and in which Dr. Scrivener there acquiesces,
that these Woidian fragments (T' or T""*) were originally part
of the same MS. with the Borgian Graeco-Sahidic fragments (T)
published by Giorgi. And this for two reasons. (1) The paging
of the two sets of fragments is quite inconsistent. The Woidian
fragments, Luke xii. 5 (Sahid. Gr. 15) — xiii. 23 (Sahid. Gr. 32)
and John viii. 22-32, are paged V n©-Tn:^ (459-484) and X"^»
X^H (657, 658) respectively {see Ford's ' Praef./ p. [24]). On
the other hand the pages of the Borgian fragments, Luke
xxii. 12 — xxiii. 11 ; John vi. 21-58 ; vi. 68 — viii. 23, are
numbered cXe-CIt2^ (239-254), tXZs.-TJU.V, TJUtr^-T^-i.
(334-343, 346-361) respectively [see Zoega, p. 184 ; Georgius,
p. 11 sq.). (2) Though the last Woidian fragment begias s<yme-
where about where the last Borgian fragment ends, it does not
begin at exactly the same place. The Borgian fragment ends
^nv ^.«oK OT eKoX^jlt Tne HTcuT-it riTe (iy&) ex t&v &va>
ellxL- vixds), viii. 23 ; the Woidian fragment begins e "f'rtifi.tUK
epoq [oTTov eyo) virdym), viii, 22. Thus the two have several
lines in common. For these reasons the later judgement of
Tregelles, who pronounces them to be 'certainly parts of the
same MS.' (Litroductory notice to his G. T.), must be abandoned ;
and we must revert to his earlier and more cautious opinion in
which he describes the Woidian fragment as ' a portion of a MS.
almost a counterpart of T' (Home's 'Introduction,' p. 180).

Nationals et autres Bibliothfeques. Tome xxix. l'" Partie. Paris, 1891 ; and
Gnostische Sohriften in Koptischer Spraohe aus dem Codex Bruclanus, von Carl
Schmidt, Leipzig, 1892.

SAHIDIC. 131

5 . A Sahidic vocabulary in the Royal Library at Paris (Copt. 44),
containing several passages from the Sahidic Bible.

6. A few fragments communicated by Adler from the collection
of Card. Borgia at Velletri. Besides these Woide incorporated
the fragments published by Mingarelli in his first two fasciculi.
The works of Giorgi and Munter, however, and the third fasci-
culus of Mingarelli, were overlooked by him or by his successor
Ford.

Besides elaborate prefaces by Ford and Woide this work gives
a Latin translation in parallel columns with the Sahidic. It
would not be difficult to point out numerous errors in the execu-
tion of this volume ; but all allowance must be made for
a posthumous work completed by a second editor who had
to educate himself for the task, and the heavy obligation under
which Woide and Ford have laid Biblical scholars may weU
silence ill-natured criticism^.

Some years later appeared a highly important contribution to
Sahidic literature in G. Zoega's ' Catalogus Codicum Copticorum
manuscriptorum qui in Museo Borgiano Vehtris adservantur,
Eomae, 1810,' a posthumous work. The compiler of this catalogue
prints at length Eph. v. 21-33 ; Apoc. xix. 7-18 ; xx. 7 — xxi. 3,
and gives besides (p. 200) a full list of the fragments of the
Sahidic version, which are found in this rich collection of
Egyptian MSS. These would go far towards filling up the gaps
in Woide's edition. Thus, for instance, they contain about three-
quarters of St. Mark's Gospel, the whole of the Epistle to the
Ephesians, and the whole of the Epistle to the Philippiana
with the exception of five or six verses at the beginning.

Li the following year (1811) appeared Engelbreth's work on
the Bashmuric version, which has been mentioned above (p. 102).
Li it he printed, for the sake of comparison with the Bashmuric,
the following passages of the Sahidic version: i Cor. i. 1-16;
XV. 5-33 j Phil. i. 7-23; i Thess. i. 4— iii. 5 ; Heb. vii. 11-13;
16-21 ; ix. 2-10; 24-28 ; x. 5-10. These were derived wholly

' In the interval between Woide and Zoega, Griesbach (1806) appears to have
obtained a few readings of this version from the Borgian MSS., e.g. Acts xxiv.
22, 23 ; XXV. 6 ; xxvii. li ; Col. ii. 2. At least I have not succeeded in tracing
them to any printed source of information.

Of the use which Schwartze has made of the published portions of the Sahidic
text in his edition of the Bohairic Gospels, I have already spoken (p. 108). He
has added no unpublished materials.

K 2,

132 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.

from the Borgian MSS.j with the exception of a few verses taken
from Woide's book. Beyond this meagre contribution of Engel-
breth's, nothing has been done during more than sixty years
which have elapsed since the appearance of Zoega's work
towards the publication of these valuable remains, important
alike for the knowledge of the Egyptian language and for
purposes of Biblical criticism. A complete collection of all the
fragments of the Sahidic New Testament is now the most
pressing want in the province of textual criticism.

The materials for such an edition are the following :

1. The MS8. used by Woide and Ford, which however will require
collating afresh.

2. The Nanian fragments published by Mingarelli. The MSS. which
he used are said to have disappeared.

3. The MSS. of the Borgian collection, as indicated in the catalogue
of Zoega. After the dispersion of the museum at Velletri the Biblical
MSS. found their way to the Library of the Propaganda at Rome, where
they now are.

4. The quotations in Tuki, though for reasons already stated these must
be used with caution. They should be traced, if possible, to their sources.

To these known materials the following, which (so far as I am
aware), have never been publicly noticed, must be added :

1. *British Museum, Papyrus xiii, four leaves or eight pages numbered
(fiXA.—(fiX.H, containing John xx. 1-29 mutilated. It does not differ
in any important respects from the text printed by Woide, but I noticed
the following variations : ver. 3, ^ifimv n/rpos ; ver. 8, add oSv after tot-s ;
ver. 10, om.oi fiadrjrai; ver. 12, ins. Koi before deoopei; ver. 17, om. 8e after
iTopevov ; ver. 18, om. 8e after epx^rai ; ver. 21, elnev ovv for fmcv 8e ; ib. add
[0] 'Iijo-oCs after airois ; ver. 28, add aira after dneKpidri.

2. *Paris, Copt. 102. Thebaic fragments of various ages, some very
old. Those from the New Testament are (a) Luke iii. 21 — iv. 9 ;
(b) John xvii. 17-26, Theb. Arab., paper ; (c) Acts vii. 61 — viii. 3, vellum;
(d) Apoc. i. 13 — ii. 2, vellum. The pages of this last fragment are
marked e— K.

3. Crawford and Balcarres collection. Several very important Sahidic
fragments which formerly belonged to Archdeacon Tattam. These are :

*i. Mark ix. 18 — xiv. 26, vellum, six leaves, the pages numbered
I©— X, two columns in a page, and thirty-nine or forty lines in a column.
I observed the following readings: ix. 24, om. p.eTa hwcpimv; 4:4:, 46, om.
OTTOU 6 a-Kahr]^ k.tX.', 50, om. Koi iraaa Bvala SKi oKurBfideTai ; xi. 26, omitted ;
xiii. 14, om. rb prjdtv vm Aaw^X Tov Trpo(jiriTOv ; xiv. 22, om. <j>dy€Te; 24 has

SAHIDIC. 133

*ii. Luke iii. 8 — vi. 37, vellum, two columns in a page, thirty-five lines
in a column. A very beautiful MS. The Ammonian Sections and
Eusebian Canons are given, and also the rirXot. There is occasionally
a rough concordance in the margin; e.g. on Luke v. 18, JV exKe-
ne'rcH(5T lUO ^. Jixe IV- JUtp. e, where St. John stands first.
I noted down the following readings: iii. 19, om. ^iXiVn-ou; 27, 'laavdv;
30, 'laavdfi. ; 32, 'l<a|3^6 ; 32, CA-Xi. for SdKjxiiv, just as in ver. 35 ; iv. 26,
2i8<Bwas ; 41, om. 6 Xpia-Tos; ver. 38, om. koi d/ifftoTepoi crvvrripovvTai. In
vi. 16 'loiSav 'la)«n/3ou is translated ' Judas the son of James.'

*iii. Lute xvii. 18 — ^xix. 30, vellum, two columns in a page, twenty-
seven lines in a column, five leaves, paged DA. to pi (sic). No sections
are marked. It has these readings : xvii. 24, om. ec rfj fj/iip^ aiT-oO ;
xviii. 28, TO iSia ; xix. 5, om. elSev airov kcu.

*iv. Gal. i. 14 — ^vi. 16, fol., vellum, eight leaves, two columns in a page,
twenty-nine lines in a column, the pages marked pit 6 onward. It has
these readings: i. 15, o fleds; ii. 5, oh ouSe; ii. 20, tov uioC tov Beoxi;
111. 1, om. TTj dKrjdeia p.fi iteideaBai. ; iii. 17, Om. €is jj^ptoroj' j iv. 7, KKrjpovofios
Sia [toCj \puTTOv ; iv. 14, TOV nei,pa<Tp.6v /iov tov iv k.t.\.; 15, irdv ; V. 1,
OTijKeTe ovv.

Of these four fragments ii and iv are the most ancient ; while
i and iii are much later, but still old. Beyond this I do not venture
to hazard an opinion as to their date, remembering that Zoega with all
his knowledge and experience declines to pronounce on the age of undated
Egyptian MSS.^

4*. A fragment (a single leaf) of a Graeco-Sahidic lectionary in
double columns, belonging to the Rev. G. Horner, who brought it from
Upper Egypt in 1873 [ix], 12jXll. The Greek and Sahidic are not
in opposite columns, but the Greek is followed by the Sahidic. The
Greek is Matt. iv. 2-11 Tea-a-epaKovra Koi TeatTcpcLKOvra vinras . . . bi-qKovovi
avTca; the Sahidic is iv. 1-6 Tore ... cm x^P™" dpovai tre. The Coptic
character resembles classes v and vi in Zoega. The Greek text has
been already numbered as Evst. 299. This has now been presented to
the Bodleian by Mr. Horner, MS. Gr. Lit. c. 1.

[Since the above vras vrritten, very considerable additions have

been made to our knowledge of the Sahidic version.

1, The Biblical MSS. of the Borgian collection preserved in the
Library of the Propaganda have been published by M. Am61ineau. The
Old Testament in the Eecueil des Travaux, the New Testament in the
'Zeitschrifb fiir Aegyptische Sprache,' 24 (1886), pp. 41, 103 ; 25 (1887),
pp. 47, 100, 125; 26 (1888), p. 96. This publication was made under

' Catal., p. 169 : Si de aetate codicum quaeria, scio equidem non defuisae qui
singuloa ad saecula sua referre satagerent, qui si aliquid profecerunt, ego aane
non otatrepo. Sed quoniam meum sit quacumque in re ignorantiam fateri potius
quam quae mihi non satisfaciunt, aliia velut explorata offerre, &c.' But aiuce
this was written the puWioation of Hyvemat's 'Album de Pal^ographie Copte'
has given much assistance ; and more may he looked for from the publication of
the Paris fragments.

134 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.

considerable disadvantages. M. Amflineau had not the opportunity
of seeing the MSS. himself, and merely published a transcript supplied
him by the Coptic Archbishop Bschai, then resident in Rome. Moreover
he gives no critical notes on various readings in cases where there is
more than one copy extant of any passage. Nor again does he edit the
fragments completely, but only such portions of the New Testament as
■were not previously known. His edition therefore is not without
inaccuracies, which have been noticed by Ciasca, vol. ii. pp. lix-lxxvii.
These defects are, however, being remedied by an edition of all these
fragments by Father Ciasca (known as the editor of the Arabic Dia-
tessaron), which is very complete. The first two volumes, containing the
Old Testament with many facsimiles, have appeared : the New Testament
portion is to follow. (Sacrorum Bibliorum Fragmenta Copto-Sahidica
Musei Borgiani iussu et sumptibus S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide
Studio P. Augustini Ciasca. Eomae. Typis eiusdem S. Congregationis.
Vol. i. 1885; Vol. ii. 1889.)

2. The Crawford and Balcarres fragments mentioned above have also
been edited by M. Am61ineau in the Eecueil des Travaux, v. (1883),
p. 105.

3. To O. von Lemm we owe a considerable number of fragments.
Bruchstiicke der Sahidischen Bibeliibersetzung nach Handschriften der
kaiserlichen bffentlichen Bibliothek zu St. Petersburg. Leipzig, 1885.
And Sieben Sahidische Bibel-Fragmente. Z. A. S. 23 (1885), p. 19.

4. Fragments, mostly smaller in extent, have been edited by the
following :

Bouriant Memoires, i. 259.

„ Eecueil, iv. 1.

Maspero Eecueil, vi. 35 ; vii. 47.

„ ifetudes Egyptologiques, i. 3. Paris, 1883.

Ceugney Eecueil, ii. 94.

Krall Mittheilungen, ii. 68.

5. But most important of all are the newly acquired fragments of the
Bibliotheque Nationale at Paris. In 1883 that Library had the good
fortune to obtain (largely through the influence of M. Am^lineau) from
the famous White Monastery or Deir Amba Shenoudah of Upper Egypt
a large collection of Sahidic fragments. The publication of these has
been begun. Considerable sections of the Old Testament have been
published by Maspero (Memoires, vol. vi), and of documents relating to
Early Church History by Bouriant (ib. vol. viii). The New Testament
fragments have not yet been published, but M. Am^lineau, who is
entrusted with them, has kindly put at my disposal the following list of
contents. I have omitted smaller Fragments :

Matthew (167 leaves): i. 1-20; i. 17 — ii. 4; i. 1-22; ii. 4, 5, 8
11, 14, 15; iii. 1-11; 1-15; iii. 10— iv. 13;'iii. 22— iv. 11; iv. 3-19
21— V. 15; iv. 15— V. 17; v. 17-32; 9-28; v. 25-vi. 3 ; vii. 6— viii. 4
vii. 8-27; x. 9-28; viii. 1-17; 2-20; ix. 13-33; ix. 25— x. 15

9AHIDIC. J 35

ix. 33— X. 15; ix. 33— x. 19; ix. 26— x. 19; x. 39— xxviii. 54 (36
leaves); x. 20 — xii. 3; xi. 3-10; xi. 15— xii. 16; xi. 16 — xii. 4;
xii. 6— xiv. 31; xii. 19-40; xiii. 19 — xiv. 6; xiii. 22-25; xiii. 35-50;
xiii. 41 — xiv. 2; xiv. 8— xv. 4; xiv. 8 — xv. 4; xiv. 17-35; xiv. 18 —
XV. 19; xiv. 20-35; xiv. 21 — xv. 19 ; xiv. 24 — xv. 11 ; xiv. 27 — xv. 1;
xiv. 31-54; xiv. 31— xv. 20; xv. 17— xvi. 19; xviii. 11-35; 15-21;
xviii. 26 — xix. 1; xix. 7-22; xix. 13 — xx. 16; xix. 24 — xx. 16;
XX. 9-32; xxi. 8-12; 19-21; 12-37; 9-25; 22-33; xxi. 31— xxii. 5 ;
xxi. 32-41; xxi. 38 — xxii. 12; xxii. 22 — xxiii. 12; xxiv. 7 — xxvi. 64;
xxiv. 2-42; xxiv. 35 — xxv. 36; xxiv. 47 — xxvi. 47; xxvi. 41-60;
xxvi. 69 — xxvii. 5 ; xxvi. 75 — xxviii. 23 ; xxvii. 26-56 ; xxvii. 49 —
xxviii. 4; xxvii. 54 — xxviii. 8. Also a fragment containing the last
few verses and the beginning of St. Mark.

Mark (43 leaves): i. 1-17; 4-5; i. 30— ii. 1; iv. 1-8; iv. 32 —
V. 11; V. 30 — vii. 36; v. 13-38; vi. 4— viii. 12; vii. 36— viii. 1;
viii. 12-31; 23-38; x. 42 — xi. 15; xi. 3-27; xi. 11 — xiii. 14; xii.
12-35; xii. 31— xiii. 19; xiv. 6— xv. 2; xiv. 12— xv. 21; xiv. 20-40.

Luke (163 leaves): i. 1-26; 1-5; 26-61; 19-35; ii. 10-33;
iii. 4 — V. 8; iii. 29 — iv. 20; iii. 36— iv. 47; iv. 22— viii. 14; iv.
43 — V. 29; v. 10— viii. 7; vi. 35 — ix. 16; vii. 1 — ix. 5; vii. 7-15;
vii. 37, 38; 41-45; viii. 2-12; 6-15; 4-37; 7-26; viii. 14— ix. 8;
viii. 32-44; ix. 3-22; 9-21; ix. 51— x. 18; x. 39— xii. 37; xi. 23-34;
24-56, xii. 1-8, 36-48; xi. 28-44; xii. 3-12; 37-51; xii. 48— xiii.
10; xii. 53 — xiii. 9; xiii. 1-16; xiii. 11-31; xiii. 15 — xiv. 15;
xiv. 2-20; xiv. 3— xv. 2; xiv. 21-32; xv. 17— xvii. 19; xvi. 18—
xvii. 16 ; xvii. 10-24 ; xviii. 4 — ^xix. 42 ; xviii. 21 — xix. 22 ; xix. 3-28 ;
xix. 28 — xxi. 22; xix. 49 — xx. 6; xxi. 22 — xxii. 1; xxii. 11-27;
xxii. 8 — xxiv. 10; xxiii. 1-39; xxiv. 27-53.

Also the following bilingual (Greek and Sahidic) texts :
iii. 15, 16; x. 11-21; xi. 16-32; xvii. 29— xviii. 1; xviii. 32-42;
xxi. 25-31 ; xxii. 66-xxiu. 17; and two leaves in Greek.

John (207 leaves). One MS. of 48 leaves, Luke iv. 38 — v. 1 ; viii.
10-29; ix. 9-62; John i. 23 — ^vii. 40; ix. 6-27; xix. 13-33; xx. 31 —
xxi. 17. i. 25-45; 25-36, ii. 7-18; i. 42— iii. 4; i. 43— ii. 11;
i. 45— iv. 19; i. 67— ii. 24; ii. 11— iii. 25; ii. 24— iv. 22; iii. 4-10;
13-16; iii. 24— iv. 8; iv. 27-51; iv. 50— vii. 20; v. 24— vi. 5;
vi. 12-35 ; 26-45 ; 30-41 ; vi. 62— vii. 17 ; vi. 65— vii. 10 ; vii. 20-39 ;
vii. 31 — X. 12; vii. 41 — viii. 23; vii. 44 — viii. 20; viii. 25-44; viii,
22— ix. 28 ; viii. 36-49; ix. 7— xi. 22 ; ix. 20-40; 27-39; xii. 4-18;
X. 13-19; xi. 27-47; 34-48; 34-45; xi. 44— xii. 2; xii. 25-34;
xiii. 7-27; 18-31 ; xiii. 19 — xiv. 1 ; xiv. 21 — xviii. 15 ; xv. 3 — xvi. 15 ;
XV. 6-26; XV. 22— xvi. 16; xvi. 1-23; xvi. 6-26; xvi. 22— xxii. 8;
xvii. 14-23; xviii. 3-26; xviii. 5 — xix. 40; xviii. 23 — xix. 2; xviii.
33— xix. 19; xix. 18-26; xx. 8-18; 19-27; xxi. 2-14.

Also the following bilingual :

i. 19-23; ii. 2-9; iv. 5-13; 15-52; v. 12-21; xii. 36-46.

Acts: ii. 2-17; 18-40; ii. 34— iv. 6; viii. 32— ix. 15; viii. 35—
ix. 22; ix. 27-40; x. 3-4; xii. 7 — xiii. 5; xii. 23 — xiii. 8; xiii.

136 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.

10 — xvi. 4; xiv. 4-22; xviii. 21 — xix. 6; xxvii. 38 — xxviii. 4; xxviii.
9-23.

EoMAira: i. 26— ii. 25 ; ii. 28— iii. 13 ; iii. 20— iv. 4; viii. 35— is. 22 ;
ix. 12— xi. 11; ix. 15— x. 1; ix. 24 — xi. 30; xi. 30— xii. 15; xiv.
4-21; XV. 10-30.

1 Cos.: i. 19— ii. 10; ii. 9— iv. 1; ii. 21— vi 4; vii. 36— ix. 5; ix. 2—
X. 7; ix. 12-25; x. 13— xi. 15; xvii. 41-45; xvii. 16-21.

2 CoE.: xi. 1-20 ; xii. 21— xiii. 13 (with Heb, i. 14); xi. 33 — xii. 14.

Hbb.: ii. 14-20; iv. 7-14; v. 12— vi. 10; ix. 2-14; 20-23; x. 9-10;
xii. 16 — xiii. 9; xiii. 7-21; xiii. 10-25.

Gal.: i. 1— vi. 18 (with Eph. i. 1-10; vi. 12-24; and Phil. i. 1-7);
i. 10-24; iu. 2-16; ii. 9— iii. 10.

Eph.: iv. 17— v. 13 (with Phil. iii. 1— iv. 6).

Phu. : i. 23 — ii. 6 ; i. 28 — ii. 20.

Col.: l 1-29; 9-11, 15 (with i Thess. ii. 15— iv. 4); i. 29— iii. 1.

I Tim.: iii. 2— v. 2.

I Pet.: i. 18— vi. 14 (with 2 Pet. i. 1 — iii. 1); ii. 23— iii. 13; iii.
12— iv. 9; iii. 15— iv. 10.

6. The British Museum has recently acquired a considerable number
of fragments on vellum, containing —

Matt.: xv. 11 — xvi. 12; xxi. 6-22.
John: ix. 7-26; x. 30-42 ; xi. 1-10; 37-57.
Acts: xxii. 12-30; xxiii. 1-15.
And also a large number of papyrus fragments in the Graf collection.

7. Mr. Petrie also has in his possession a valuable papyrus MS.
containing considerable portions of St. John. This will probably shortly
be published by Mr. Crum.

From the above account it becomes clear that we have now
already published, or preserved in European libraries, enough
material to produce a complete or almost a complete edition of
the Sahidic New Testament. But not only this. We have also
a considerable number of fragments written on papyrus, which
are much older than any of the MSS. previously known, and
will enable us to vrrite a history of the version from an early
date. May we express a hope that M. Amdlineau, who has made
large collections for the purpose, would first of all give us an
edition of the Paris fragments as accurate as that of Ciasca, and
then of the Sahidic New Testament as a whole? Much more
than when Bishop Lightfoot wrote is the publication of it the
pressing need of Biblical criticism.]

SAHIDIC. 137

The order of the books in the Sahidic New Testament, so
far as regards the great groups, appears to have been the same
as in the Bohairic, i.e. (1) The Four Gospels, (3) The Pauline
Epistles, (3) The Catholic Epistles and Acts {see above, p. 134).
This may be inferred from the order of quotations in the
Sahidic vocabulary described by Woide, Praef., p. 18 ; for the
Sahidic MSS. are so fragmentary that no inference on this point
can be drawn from them< Like the Bohairic, the original
Sahidic Canon seems to have excluded the Apocalypse. In
the vocabulary just mentioned it does not appear as part of
the New Testament, but liturgical and other matter interposes
before it is taken. Moreover in most cases it is evident from
the paging of the fragments which remain that the MSS.
containing this book formed separate volumes. In the Paris
fragment described above this is plainly the case, and it is
equally obvious in the Borgian MSS. Ixxxviii, Ixxxix (Zoega,
p. 187). Thus in Ixxxviii, pp. 39-44 contain Apoc. xii. 14 — xiv.
13 ; and in Ixxxix. pp. 59, 60, 63, 64 contain Apoc. xix. 7-18,
XX. 7 — xxi. 3. On the other hand in Ixxxvii. where Apoc. iii.
20 begins on p. 279, this fragment must have formed part of
a much larger volume, which contained (as we may suppose)
a considerable portion of the New Testament.

The order of the four Gospels presents a difficulty. In the
Sahidic vocabulary already referred to, the sequence is John,
Matthew, Mark^ Luke ; and this order is also observed in
the marginal concordance to the Crawford and Balearres MS.
described above. Thus there is reason for supposing that at one
time St. John stood first. But the paging of the oldest MSS.
does not favour this conclusion. In the Woidian and Borgian
fragments of the Graeco-Sahidic Gospels, which belong to the
fourth or fifth century, the numbering of the pages (see p. 130)
shows that St. Luke stood before St. John. It is possible indeed
that in the MSS. the transcriber was guided by the usual
Greek arrangement. But in other MSS. also the synoptic evan-
gelists precede St. John, e. g. Borg. xlvi, 1, Ixiv ; while in other
fragments again (Borg. Ixx, Ixxiv) the high numbers of the pages of
St. John show that the Evangelist cannot have stood first in the
volume, and this seems further supported by the Pai-is fragments,
in which we find St. John following St. Luke in the same MS.

In this version, as in the Bohairic, the Epistle to the

138 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.

Hebrews was treated as the work of St. Paul ; but instead
of being placed, as there, after 2 Thessalonians and before
I Timothy, it stood between a Corinthians and Galatians \ It
clearly occupies this position in the Borgian MS. Ixxx (Zoega,
p. 186) : and by calculating the pages I have ascertained that
this must also have been its place in all the other MSS. of
the Pauline Epistles of which fragments after a Corinthians are
preserved. These are the Borgian fragments Ixxxii, Ixxxv, Ixxxvi,
(Zoega, p. 186 sq.), and the Crawford and Balcarres fragment (iv)
described above (p. 132) ; all of which happily are paged.

The Oxford MS. Hunt. 394 is a proof that the Acts followed the
Catholic Epistles in the Sahidic New Testament, as is the case also
in the Memphitic. Woide indeed (Praef., p. [22]), when describing
this MS., says, ' eooorditur ab Actis Apostolicis' ; but, even if this
be so, his own account of the paging shows that the leaves have
been displaced in binding, and that the Catholic Epistles originally
stood first. The vocabulary also places them before the Acts.

The Sahidic version appears to be in one respect less faith-
ful to the original than the Bohairic. So far as I am able to
judge, it pays more respect to the Egyptian idiom, frequently
omitting the conjunction and leaving the sentences disconnected.
As regards the vocabulary, it adopts Greek words with as great
facility as the Bohairic, or even greater. This we should
hardly anticipate in Upper Egypt, which must have been com-
paratively free from Greek influence. Altogether it is a rougher
and less polished version than the Bohairic.

The real textual value of the Sahidic cannot under present
circumstances be assigned with any certainty. What would be
received by one school of critics would not be admitted by another.
But the Editor readily records the verdict of Bishop Lightfoot that
the text of it, though very ancient, is inferior to the Bohairic, and
less pure ; that it exhibits a certain infusion of readings which
were widely spread in the second century, and may very probably
have had, to a considerable extent, a Western origin; that it
differs very largely from the Traditional text ; and that both in text
and in intei-pretation it is entirely independent of the Bohairic.
The coincidences are not greater than must have been exhibited
by two separate translations in allied dialects from independent

^ Its position was before Galatians, and not, as in the archetype of the Codex
Vaticanus, after it.

SAHIDIC.

139

texts of the saine original. Of any mutual influence of the versions
of Upper and Lower Egypt on each other no traces are discernible.
The following passage from Acts xvii. 12-16 will serve to
illustrate the independence of these two versions.

BOHAIEIC.

^^ OTJU-Kcy jULeit onr n eS.oX
n.iKTOT ^.nrni.gj't" itejuL
gjA.rtKeoTemm itgjiojuLX
neTcxHJUi.u3n next. ^&.n-

"exA.TejuLi 2^e rixe niio-r-
2^ii itTe eecci-XoniKH xe
L ni,TXoc ^icoiuj .^ert
TKe£.epoi-i. jULmc^.xi itTe
4)noT'f ^Jr^ e niKeju.^
eT eJU^.JU^.^.T exKum. e
itiJULKcy eifcijeopTep juljul-
ojo-r-:- ^^Toxe ci."Toxonr
£.fT(^e n^.TXoc eKoX nxe
nicnaoT e opeq^^ exert
4>iox«. ^.Tf CU3XH 2^e juljul^-t
nxe ciX^-c tiejuL tijixo-
■©eoc-:- " itK 2^e eTi.xT'^e
n^-rXoc -LTenq eg^pHi e
i.0Krt.i.c oTog^ eT^.T(Tf
ertT-oXn e 6T ncgim itci-
X«i.c nejuL xiJULoeeoc
^mi. licei 2^^poq nx"'-
Xeju. ^.Tfi eKoX ^.Tcye-
ncwoTf •:• " n«LTfXoc 2^6 ni.q
.^en i-OHni-c eqcojutc
eE.oX ^iXCJuoT A-qxcJoitT
2^e itze ^eq^rteTJUL^.
fi^pai n^HTq eqn-Lnr e
'fnoXic ecocy juLJUiex-
aji.juLaje i^coXon-:-

Sahidic.
^^&^& (Je eJioX ert^^HXOT
^tmcireTe ^.•ru3 &ert-
cg^iAxe ng^eXXHit npiJL-
ju.i.o jULn 2,enpu5JULe e-
iticgcjooT-:- i^nxepo-reiJULe
<re itcTi moir2i^.i hk eE.o-
Xg^n eeci.XXortiKK tme
A.nfT"^.cijeoeiaj ^n Kepoii.
SjCncgA-xe SxnnoTxe e-
E-oX^jIxIjC ni.TXoc i,-rei
on ejuti-T eTojTopTp
A.TU3 eTKiJUL 6 njutHHcye-:-
^* KTeTItOTf 2.e A. necKHT
2£ooT SJCni-irXoc e Tpeq-
Sliuk &PA.I exn e^.X^.cc^

^. ClXi-C 2i.e (Jcb JUUULOOT

jULtt xiJULoeeoc:- ^^neT-
K-LeicTi. 2^e SXni-TXoc
^nrnxq cg-^ i.eertiti.i^.c
i.TU3 HxepoTXi noTett-
xoXk TtTooxq ttji. ciXi.c
juLit TiJULooeoc 2£e e-jreej
cy<Lpoq ^H OTfJenn i-nrei
e^oX-:- "epe n^-nrXoc 2^e

iti-ii-c i. neqnrteTJixi.
^ox^ex tt2,HT"q eqni.Tf
exnoXic eJULJUieg, JxJUL^^-
neiZiCJuXort-:-

140 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.

[(4) The Fayoum Version.

The history of the discovery of the third Egyptian version, and
the reasons that have caused it to be assigned to the district of
the Fayoum, have been given above.

The Fayoum (cJ)IOJUL : niOJU.: nii-JUt) is a district of
Egypt situated to the west of the Nile valley, from which it is
separated by a narrow strip of desert, and lying about eighty
miles to the south of the apex of the Delta. It is a large
depression in the desert, which has been reclaimed and fertilized
by an offshoot of the Nile, now called the Bahr-il-Yousouf, and
is distinguished at the present day for its extreme fertility.
It appears to have been particularly prosperous and thickly
populated in Ptolemaic and Roman times; and in the desert
surrounding the cultivated land are the remains of several
Greek cities, and of large Coptic monasteries ; and it is from
here that the chief part of the collection of papyrus fragments
now in Berlin and Vienna have been obtained.

The dialect of this district, both in the fragments of the
Scriptures preserved in it, and in the other documents more
recently discovered (Z. A. S. 23, 1885, p. 26), presents very
marked peculiarities. As regards vowels it shows the following
amongst other variations as compared with Sahidic. It sub-
stitutes ^. for e : IteK for m^K ; Xen for pA.n ; Kee^ for
XA-^ '■ K-s-^q ; H for e : chut-i for cen-f : citxe ; hjuli
for eJtxi : eijute ; ^. for o : E.i.X for eKoX ; Xi.S. for epoq ;

for (JO : ^oSl for ^UiSL; XojU.1 for XcujULI (=pU3JU.l:
piXJJUte). In consonants it has two very marked features, the
substitution of X for p, as eX, eXe, Xen ; ojkXi for ep, epe,
&c., and of K for final q, as rtT^-B. for Itxoq.

A considerable amount of this version still probably remains
unpublished, but specimens may be discovered in the following :

1. Giorgi. Fragmentum Evangelii S. Joannis &c. {see p. 128) contains

1 Cor. ix. 9-16.

2. Zoega. Catalogus &c. {See p. 102.)

MIDDLE EGYPTIAN OR LOWER SAHIDIC. I4I

3. Engelbreth. Fragmenta Basmurico-Coptica Veteris et Novi Tes-
tamenti. Havniae, 1811.

4. Maspero. Eecueil, 11 (1889), p. 116.

5. Mittheilungen, i. p. 69. Matt. xi. 27.

6. Mittelaegyptische Bibelfragmente, in Etudes Arch^ologiques Lin-
guistiques et Historiques d^diees k M. le Dr. C. Leemans. Leide, 1885.
(But perhaps this and 4 may be more correctly classed as Middle Egyptian
or Lower Sahidic.)

On this version Bishop Lightfoot wrote : 'As the Bashmuric
is a secondary version, it has no independent value, and is only-
useful in passages where the Sahidic is wanting.' This opinion
would hardly represent the present position. That the Sahidic
and Fayoum versions are not independent is quite true, but the
relation of them to one another is much more that they are
different fonoas of the same version, of which on the whole
perhaps the Fayoum represents the older and more primitive
text.

(5) The Middle Egyptian ^ or Lower Sahidic Version.

It has already been explained that documents found on the
site of Memphis exhibit a dialect different in some respects from
any of those that we have yet considered. In this also fragments
have been found of a translation of the New Testament.

The dialect shows a combination of Sahidic and Bohairic forms.
It has IU3T- for Sah. eiU3T; JULeTHiiT for JULm-eiCUTT;
Jcwi-itKC for lougj^KHHC ; rtTOTK for nTooTK ; cgxtupi
for ajTtupe. It agrees again with the Fayoum dialect (which
is generally considered a variety of it) in its affection for i., as
tVT^K for ItTOK, and apparently in using X for p, but only
occasionally.

The following specimen from Rom. xi. 31-36 will exhibit the
character of the dialect and the version : the Sahidic is taken
from the Boi-gian fragment published by AmeHneau, Z. A. S. 25,
1887, p. 49 ; the Middle Egyptian from ' Mittheilungen,' ii. p. 69.

' The term 'Middle Egyptian' is often used as a general term to include the
three varieties of rayoumio, Lower Sahidic or what is properly Memphitic, and
, Akhmimic.

142 egyptian versions,

Middle Egtptian.

xi. ^^ Tei Te

«K nnei ^uaox TenoT ■ ei.T

Sahidio.

xeK^^c ^(juoT eTerteei kht
^^SjCHitcoc • i. nrtoT-f vi.p
^.mr oTA-it niAJL eg^o-rit ex
juteTTiTneg^-f • xeK^.^.c
eqeni. n-s.T XKpoT :
^^U3 nojcuK mr juteTpejut
jut^o • XiCK TcocJjiA. • XJtlt
ncooTn jt«.n<FF ' nea

JULnnoT'f • i-ifo) £,en;
A-XfJenXexoTf ite tteq^jii-Ti •
^^itijut vi-p nexe i.qiju.1 ert
2jHx JULnoc • nei exit.^.
^*ce £.iHTq eKoX • ie «ijul ne
xe ^.qttjojni tiKq nXeq
2£ittji.xitj • ie rtijui. ne
xe i-qiXi naq ncg^-pen ■
^^itxA-XeqxoTii. HHq ■ xe
TlXHpq g^It eB.oX JU.JULi.q
rte • i.TU3 eKoXg,sxi.
i-xq • ^.Ttw er vii.Ki.xoT
eXi.q • niuq ne neooT
ncyi. nieng 2,i.JULHn.

xi.1 xe
OH itni.1 ^(iiot xettoT • ei.T
p i.x ni.g, xe enexnrti. •
2£eKi,c ^u3ot eTeni. tti.-r
juLnnctoc i. nitoTxe
exn oifott niju. eg^oxn eoT
Jutrixi-xiti-^jXe • xeKi-c
eqetti. ni.T xnpoT
oj ncgiKe nxJUtnxpjUL

JUti-O JUtlt XCOcf>Ii. i.TU)

ncooTfit JULnnoTxe itee
exe niteTettjjui.ec[jxJteq2;i.n
i.Tto exe nnenrettjen
pi.xoT nneqg,iooYe
niJUL vi.p nenxi.qeiju.e en
£,HX JULnxoeic • ni.i ex«i.
ci.Ke eii.xq e^oX h niju. ne
rtxi.qaa3ne Ki.q npeq
XI ttjoxne • H nijut ne
nxi.qeipe rti.q nujopn
xi-peq xoTeio ni,q • xe
nxHpq 2,e« efi.oX JutJULoq
ne • i-nrcu eE.oX2,ixo
oxq i.Ti« e-rni-KoxoT
epoq • ncjbq ne neooT
cg-5. nieiteg, g^iJULKn.

Specimens of this version may be found in —

1. M^moires de I'lnstitut ^gyptien, II. ii, edited by Bouriant.

2. Mittheilungen, ii. p. 69;

3. Coptic MSS. brought from the Fayoum by "W. M. Flinders Petrie,
Esq., D.C.L., edited by W. E. Crum, p. 1.

4. It is also said to be contained in some Graeco-Coptic fragments
recently acquired by the British Museum.

The lines between this dialect and version and that of the

AKHMIM DIALECT. I43

Fayoum are not, however, clearly defined, and further research
may make it necessary to rearrange the different specimens
mentioned in this and the preceding sections.

Textually the version is of equal value with that of the
Fayoum, that is, it represents another tradition of the version
of Upper Egypt, of which Sahidic was the most important
representative.

(6) The AJchmim Dialect.

It would have probably been more scientific to have begun our
discussion of the versions of Upper Egypt with a description of
the Akhmim dialect. It certainly represents the language in an
older form than any other dialect we have examined ; unfortu-
nately such a very small fragment of the New Testament version
exists that its importance at present can hardly be estimated.

The Akhmim dialect is known to us by a series of Apocryphal
and Biblical fragments published by M. Bouriant (Memoires,
i. p. 243), and has the following characteristics. In its vowels its
affinities are nearest to the Middle Egyptian ; it has i. for o,
i,T for OOT, and e for i.. It does not use X for p. Like
the Sahidic it has double vowel-endings, and the weak final e,
but not 4>, e, X, for n^,, T^, Kg,. It also has some Bohairic
forms, such as nOT, ^pe, i.q. In the vowels it has the
following peculiarities : ^. for e (Sah.), i.gjOTrt, i.£,pHI,
^>.p^>.K, -S-E-i-X ; I or ei for H, pi (sun), CJULSI, T"£,eJ ; OT for
U3, Ko-r, xof, cStot ; o for ^.T, no, cito.

But its most' distinguishing feature is an entirely new letter,
jgj : this may represent eg of other dialects ; ^ for eaj (to
know), e^ for <Laj ; or 2£ as T^jg^no for xno ; or ^ : g,, as
ujn^ for ojiti; cg,ei for c^i.i.

The textual affinities can hardly be worked out with the small
amount of material we possess, but there seems to be little doubt
that it represents in a very early form the same version that
we are acquainted with in Sahidic. Further discoveries in this
dialect may do much to make us acquainted with the early
history of the version of Upper Egypt.

Only two short fragments of this version are known, which
have been edited by Mr. W. E. Crum in his edition of the Coptic

144 EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.

MSS. brought from the Fayoum by W. M. Flinders Petrie (p. 2).
They are contained in a parchment MS. of very great antiquity
(Mr. Crum suggests the fourth century, but this is certainly too
early), and contain St. James iv. 12-13, St. Jude 17-20. The
following comparison of it with the Sahidic will show both the
similarity of the versions and the differences of the dialect.

Akhmimic. Sahidic.

Jude ^''itHajexe xnnnxA-cic ic "nitcyi.2fe juunenxoeic ic
nxc nei eT^.. neqi.nocToXoc nepgc • m.\ Kt-l neqi.nocxpXoc
2£ooT exrt n^ipn' A.E.<i.X • xoot xm nojopn • efi.oX
^^xe ijr^^ooc xe ^it T"jg,^.ei "ace -Lnracooc xe £ji ^i^n
TmoT^-eicy otn. g^eitpeqxpscpe nneo-roeicy ovn g^ertpeqzHp
HHT eTJU(.^A.2,e Ki-Ti. neni nH** e-yjutoocye k^t^. iteni
enfJULii. nnonfjuLUT' ^eqT- OTJUtii. nneTfjuLm-cy^qTe •
"nei iteTntopx ^E.^.X eg^eit "rti-i ttexncupx e^oX eg^en
ilfifXiKoc ne ejutnTeT nmi^. ilfrxiKon ne eJDtKxoT niti
JuuuLo • 2° nxu3xite2^e rtA-ijCppe- lJuu.i.T- ^^ HxcotIi 2s.e itijuiepi.-
Te gjOjne eTeTK kiut juuxjlcjut- xe eTexK kcjux JuLncuTeit —
ne^^ TexKnicTic exoTri.i.B.e
XJtncgi; exeTncy^K^ Mj^
nimi. e^-o•5f^.^.^e

It has only been possible in the above account to give
a rough outliue of more recent discovery. Further investigation
is necessary, and the lines which divide the different dialects,
especially those between Fayoumic and Middle Egyptian, require
to be more accurately defined. Much may be hoped also from
the results of future discovery. The rubbish heaps of the
monasteries, the concealed libraries, the graves, have yielded up
some of their treasures, but all has not yet been brought to light.
Enough has been written to suggest that discoveries of great
interest for the life and character of early Egyptian Christianity
have been made, and that much still remains to be found which
may indirectly throw a flood of light on the early history of
Christianity as a whole ^.]

' The writer must express his regret that, owing to the haste with which the
additions to this article had to be written, much must have been passed ot

CHAPTEE Y.

THE OTHER VEESIONS OP THE NEW TESTAMENT.

'T'HE remaining Versions are of less importance in the asceiiain-
ment of the sacred text. But some of them have recently
received more attention in the general widening of research,
and in becoming better known have strengthened their claims to
recognition and value. Three of them, at all events, date from
the period of the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament now
known to be in existence. And the presence ampngst us of
eminent scholars acquainted with them renders reference to them
more easy than it was a few years ago.

Nevertheless, some are of slight service to the critic, being
secondary versions, and as such becoming handmaids, not of
the Greek, but of some other version translated from the Greek.

In the account of these versions, the Editor of this edition is
indebted for most valuable assistance to Mr. F. C. Conybeare,
late Fellow of University College, Oxford, who has re-written
the sections on the Armenian and Georgian versions ; to Professor
Margoliouth, who has also re-written those on the Ethiopic and
Arabic ; to the Kev. Llewellyn J. M. Bebb, Fellow of Brasenose
College, who has re-written the account of the Slavonic ; and to
Dr. James W. Bright, Assistant-Professor of English Philology
in the John Hopkins University, who has contributed what is
known on the Anglo-Saxon Version.

(1) The Gothic Veesion (Goth.).

The history of the Goths, who from the wilds of Scandinavia
overran the fairest regions of Europe, has been traced by the
master-hand of Gibbon (Decline and Fall, Chapters x, xxvi,
xxxi, &c.), and needs not here be repeated. While the nation
was yet seated in Moesia, Ulphilas or Wulfilas [318-388],

VOL. II. L

146 OTHER VERSIONS.

a Cappadocian, who succeeded their first Bishop Theophilus in
A. D. 348, though himself an Arian and a teacher of that subtil
heresy to his adopted countrymen, became their benefactor, by
translating both the Old ^ and New Testament into the Gothic,
a dialect of the great Teutonic stock of languages, having
previously invented or adapted an alphabet expressly for their
use. There can be no question, from internal evidence, that the
Old Testament was rendered from the Septuagint, the New from
the Greek original " : but the existing manuscripts testify to
some corruption from Latin sources, very naturally arising
during the occupation of Italy by the Goths in the fifth century.
These venerable documents are principally three, or rather may
be treated under two MSS. and one group.

1. CoDBX Aegbntbus, the most precious treasure of the University
of Upsal, in the mother-country of the Gothic tribes. It appears to be
the same copy as Ant. Morillon saw at Werden in Westphalia towards
the end of the sixteenth century, and was taken by the Swedes at the
eiege of Prague in 1648. Queen Christina gave it to her hbrarian,
Isaac Vossius, and from him it was very rightly purchased about 1662
by the Swedish nation and deposited at Upsal. This superb codex con-
tains fragments of the Gospels (in the Western order, Matthew, John,
Luke, Mark) on 187 leaves, 4to (out of 330), of purple vellum; the bold,
uncial, Gothic letters being in silver, sometimes in gold, of course much
faded, and so regular that some have imagined, though erroneously, that
they were impressed with a stamp. The date assigned to it is the fifth
or early in the sixth century, although the several words are divided, and
some various readings stand in the margin primA manu.

2. CoDBX Caeolinus, described above for Codd. PQ, and for the Old
Latin gv,e, contains in Gothic about forty verses of the Epistle to the
Romans, first published by Knittel, 1762.

3. Codices Ambeosiani, or palimpsest fragments of five manuscripts,
apparently like Cod. Carolinus, from Bobbio, and of about the same date,
discovered by Mai in 1817 in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, and pub-
lished by him and Count C. O. Castiglione (Ulphilse Partium Ineditarum

. . . Specimen,in five parts, Milan, 1819, 1820, 1834, 1835, 1839). The lastT,
named manuscripts are minutely described and illustrated by a rude fac-
simile in Home's 'Introduction,' and after him in Tregelles' 'Home,' vol. iv,

' 'But he prudently suppressed the four books of Kings, as they might
tend to irritate the fierce and sanguinary spirit of the barbarians ; ' Gibbon,
eh. xxxvii.

' ' A faithful, a stern and noble Teutonic rendering of the Greek,' is the ver-
dict of Prebendary S. C. Malan (St. John's Gospel, translated from the Eleven
Oldest Versions except the Latin, &c., 4to, 1872, Preface, p. viii). Bishop Elli-
cott also praises this version as usually faithful and accurate, yet marks an Arian
tinge in the rendering of Phil. ii. 6-8.

GOTHIC. 147

pp. 304-7. They consist of (1) a portion of St. Paul's Epistles, under
Homilies of Gregory the Great (viii) ; (2) portions of St. Paul, under
Jerome on Isaiah (viii or ix) ; (3) parts of the Old Testament, under
Plautus and part of Seneca ; (4) under four pages of St. John in Latin
part of St. M^itt. xxvi, xxvii. The fifth fragment consists of Acts of the
Council of Ghalcedon with no extracts from the Bible. Mai refers some
of the Gothic writing to the sixth century and some as far back as the
fourth or beginning of the fifth. Unlike the Codex Argenteus (at least
if we trust Dr. E. D. Clarke's facsimile of the latter), the words in Mai's
palimpsests are continuous : they contain parts of Esther, Nehemiah
(apparently no portion of the books of Kings), a few passages of the
Gospels, and much of St. Paul ^ H. F. Massmann (Ulfilas, Stuttgart,
1855-57) also added from an exposition a few verses of St. John, and
there are fragments at Vienna-emdJlome ^.(Ui^ y^*«-4^

These fragments (for such they still must be called) ^, in spite
of the influence of the Latin, approach nearer to the received
text, in respect of their readings, than the Egyptian or one or
two other versions of about the same age ; and from their
similarity in language to the Teutonic have been much studied
in Germany. The fullest and best edition of the whole
collected, with a grammar and lexicon, is by H. C. von der
Gabelentz and J. Loebe (Ulfilas Vet. et N. Testament! versionis
Gothicae fragmenta quae supersunt, Leipsic, 1836-46, viz. vol. i.
Text, 1836 ; Pars ii. Glossarium, 1843 ; Pars ii. Grammatik, 1846),
and of the Codex Argenteus singly that of And. Uppstrom (with
a good facsimile), Upsal, 1854. This scholar published separately
in 1857 ten leaves of the manuscript which had been stolen
between 1821 and 1834, and were restored through him by the
penitent thief on his death-bed. The Gothic Gospels, however,
had been cited as early as 1675 in Fell's N. T., and more fully in
Mill's, through Francis Junius' edition (with Marshall's critical
notes), which was printed at Dort in 1665, from Derrer's accurate

' 60th. Version. Paul. Epist. quae supersunt, C. 0. Castiglione, Milan, 1834.

■' Skeat, St. Mark, 1882. . jyj J

' Matt. iii. 11 ; v. 8 ; 15— vi. 32 ; vii. 12— x. 1 ; 23— xi. 25 ; xxt. 38— xxvi. 3 ; XcL

65— xxvii. 19; 42-66 ; Mark i. 1 ; vi. 30 ; 58— xii. 38 ; xiii. 16-29 ; xiv. 4-16 ; A'^^^/

41— xvi. 12 ; Luke i. 1 — x. 30 ; xiv. 9 — xvi. 24 ; xvii. 3— xx. 46 ; John i. 29 ; iii.

3-5 ; 23-26 ; 29-32 ; v. 21-23 ; 35-38 ; 46— xi. 47 ; xii. 1-49 ; xiii. 11— xix. 13 ;

Kom. vi. 23 ; vii. 1— viii. 10 ; 34— xi. 1 ; 11— xii. 5 ; 8— xiv. 5 ; 9-20 ; xv. 3-13 ;

xvi. 21-24 ; i Cor. i. 12-25 ; iv. 2-12 ; v. 3— vi. 1 ; vii. 5-28 ; viii. 9— ix. 9 ; 19—

X. 4 ; 16— xi. 6 ; 21-31 ; xii. 10-22 ; xiii. 1-12 ; xiv. 20-27 ; xv. 1-35 ; 46- Gal.

i. 7 ; 20— iii. 6 ; 27— Eph. v. 11 ; 17-29 ; vi. 8-24 ; Phil. i. 14— ii. 8 ; 22— iv. 17 ;

Col. i. 6-29 ; ii. 11— iv. 19 ; i Thess. ii. 10— 2 Thess. ii. 4 ; 15— i Tim. v. 14 ;

16 — 2 Tim. iv. 16 ; Tit. i. 1 — ii. 1 ; Philem. 1-23 ; but no portion of the Acts,

Hebrews, Catholic Epistles, or Apocalypse.

L a

148 OTHER VERSIONS.

transcript of the Upsal manuscript, made in or about 1655j when
it was in Isaac Vossius' possession. Other editions of the Codex
Argenteus were published by G. Stiemhielm in 1671 for the
College of Antiquaries at Stockholm ; by E. Lye at the Clarendon
Press in 1750 from the revision of Eric Benzel, Archbishop of
Upsal ; and (with the addition of the fragments in the Codex
Carolinus) by Jo. Ihre in 1763, and by J. C. Zahn in 1805. And
also the Gothic and Anglo-Saxon Gospels in parallel columns
with the Versions of Wycliffe and Tyndale, London, 1865, and
Ulfila, Oder die Gotische Bibel (N. T.), E. Bernhardt, Halle, 1875,
and St. Mark with a grammatical commentary, R. Miiller and
H. Hoeppe, 1881j and Skeat, Gospel of St. Mark in Gothic,
Clarendon Press, 1883.

(2) The Abmenian Version.

The existing Armenian version is a recension made shortly
after the Council of Ephesus of a still earlier version, which was
based in part upon a Syriac, in part upon a Greek original. This
latest recension was made according to ' accurate and reliable
copies ' of the Greek Bible, which, along with the Canons of the
Council of Ephesus, were brought from Constantinople about the
year 433. One would naturally wish for more details than the
above brief statement contains ; yet it is all that one can
definitely infer from the history of the version as related by
three nearly contemporary writers, whose accounts we now sub-
join, namely, Koriun, Lazar of Pharpi, and Moses Khorenatzi.

Koriun ^ in his life of St. Mesrop (written between 441 and 453
A. D.) relates as follows : —

In the fifth year of the reign of Vramshapho [i.e. about
397 A. D.], St. Mesrop was first in Edessa, then in Amid, lastly in
Samosata, busy all the time about his discovery of the Armenian
characters^- In Samosata, where he was received with great
respect by the clergy and bishop, Mesrop met with a Greek
scribe, Hrofanos (? Rufinus), in conjunction with whom, and

' See p. 10 of the Armenian edition ; Venice, 1833. The French translation of
this in the 'Collection des Historiens de I'Armtoie,' Paris, 1869, is untrust-
worthy in all ways, and especially because the ti-anslator both adds to and
omits from the Armenian text at random.

' The true history of which we cannot now make out, for, as given by his
contemporaries, it is already obscured by legend and miracle.

ARMENIAN. I49

"witli the help of two pupils named John and Joseph, he
undertook a translation of the Bible. They began — and this is
noteworthy — with the book of the Proverbs of Solomon; Hrofanos
or Rufinus writing down the translation with his own hand.
Mesrop next visited the Bishop of the Syrians, who congratulated
him on his work. He then returned to Nor Chalach, or new
city, as Valarshapat was called by the Romans, in the sixth
year of Vramshapho's reign, A. D. 398. At a later time, Koriun,
the writer, was himself sent with Eznik to Constantinople,
apparently in quest of books to translate; for they returned
with a sure copy of the Scriptures, with works of the Fathers,
and with the canons of the Councils of Nice and Ephesus.
'Now St. Sahak had long before translated the collection of
Church books from Greek into Armenian, as well as much true
wisdom of the holy Patriarchs. But he now resumed, and
taking with the help of Eznik the former translations made
hurriedly and offhand, he confirmed them by the help of the
true copies now brought, and they translated much commentary
on the books.' The above is the gist of what Koriun has to teU
us, though he mentions that scholars were sent to Edessa to
translate and bring back the works of the Fathers. Why
Mesrop began with the Book of Proverbs, whether he translated
more than that, and from which language, we do not learn from
Koriun. Lazar of Pharpi ^, who wrote in the last half of the
sixth century, is our next authority. He states that up to the
last decade of the fourth century, the offices of religion were
still read in Greater Armenia in Syriac, a language which the
people did not understand. The edicts of the kings of Armenia
were also written out in Syriac or Greek characters. But as
soon as the Armenian alphabet was discovered, St. Sahak — who
was patriarch 390-428 a.d. and an expert in Greek — set himself,
in response to the patriotic exhortations of St. Mesrop, of Vram-
shapho the king, and of the clergy and nobles, to translate the
Holy Scriptures. He states that St. Sahak's version comprised
the whole of the Old and New Testaments, and was made from
Greek.

Moses of Chorene, bk. iii. ch. 36 ff., copies, confuses, and adds
to Koriun's account. A little before 370 a.d. the Persians

1 The translation of this writer in Langlois' second volume is reliable.

150 OTHER VERSIONS.

overran Armenia, and Meroujah, their leader, burned all the
books he could find in the country, proscribed the study of the
Greek language, and enacted penalties against any who should
speak it or translate from it. At that time, adds Moses, the
offices of the church were performed in Greek, because the
Armenian alphabet did not yet exist. On the death of Theodo-
sius (Jan. 395 A.D.) there was a partition of Armenia between his
successor Arcadius and the king of Persia, by which the latter took
undisputed possession of the eastern provinces, including the basin
of Ararat, in which lay the new religious centre Valarshapat or
Edschmiadzin, the via woA.ts of the Eomans. The new Mesropic
alphabet was at first used only in Persian Armenia ; for, says
Moses, in the parts dependent on the Greeks, all writing had to
be in Greek characters, Syriac being forbidden. As soon as
Mesrop had elaborated his alphabet with the aid of Hrophanos,
he betook himself to the work of translation ; and with the aid
of his pupils John and Joseph, translated the entire twenty-two
authentic books along with the New Testament, taking care to
begin with the Book of Proverbs. About the year 406 he returned
to Armenia, and found St. Sahak engaged in translating the
Syriac Bible. He hints that Sahak would have preferred
a Greek original, if Meroujah had not burned all the Greek
books nearly thirty years before. This perhaps implies that the
version, on which Mesrop had been engaged in Samosata, was
made from Greek. Nor is that unlikely ; for Rufinus, who
helped him, was a Greek, and we learn from Koriun that there
were Armenians in Edessa studying both Greek and Syriac.
We read in bk. iii. ch. 60 of the History of Moses, about
missions sent to Edessa and Byzantium in order to the transla-
tion of the works of the Fathers, but we hear nothing more
expressly touching the Version of the Bible, save this, that
after the Council of Ephesus, Sahak and Mesrop, then in Ash-
tishat in Taron, received from Byzantium, as aforesaid, the
canons of the council recently held, along with accurate copies
of the Greek Bible. On receipt of these, Sahak and Mesrop
translated afresh what had already been translated, and were
zealous in recasting the text. But they were not, it seems, after
all, satisfied with their work, and sent Moses to Alexandria to
learn the ' beautiful tongue ' (i. e. Greek), with a view to a more
accurate articulation and division (of the Armenian scriptures).

ARMENIAN. I5I

The above summary exhausts the evidence of Moses of Kho-
rene ^. It would appear therefrom that the Bible was translated
twice into Armenian before the end of the fourth century; by
Mesrop from Greek, and by Sahak from Syriac. The circum-
stance that Mesrop in Samosata began with the Proverbs of
Solomon raises a suspicion that the earlier books had already
been rendered, when and by whom is unknown. Certainly the
reasons given by Koriun and by Moses for Mesrop beginning
with Proverbs are insufficient. Moses again in stating that
Sahak rendered the entire Bible from Syriac contradicts both
Koriun and Lazar. Are we to infer that Sahak and Mesrop after
430 A.D. retranslated according to the Constantinople Bibles
what they had already translated from Syriac, and also it would
seem from a presumably less perfect Greek text 1 Anyhow it is
unlikely that they would wholly sacrifice their own work, and
we should therefore expect to find in the Armenian version
a mixture of texts, namely of some old Syriac text, which must
have been in vogue as late as 380, of some older Greek text
supplied in Edessa or Samosata, and of the Constantinopolitan
texts ; which last may well have been among the fifty splendid
copies which had been prepared under the order of Constantino
by Eusebius a century before. If, and how far, these difierent
elements enter into the Version can only be determined by
a careful analysis of its readings. It may be that in some MSS.
there lurks more of the unrevised text than in others^. The
entire history is an apt illustration of that political see-saw
between the Eoman and the Persian powers which went on in
Armenia during the fourth and fifth centuries, and out of which
the patriotic vigour and devotion of St. Mesrop and St. Sahak
carved at last a truly national Armenian Church, with an
independent life and literature of its own.

The Armenian Version was collated for Robert Holmes' edition
of the Septuagint, though not with desirable accuracy nor from
the oldest MSS. For example, the Codex Arm. 3 of the Penta-
teuch, which Holmes declares, teste Adlero, to be of the year 1068,

^ Some critics bring down the date of Moses as late as the seventh or eighth
century.

' Dr. Baronean thinks that the varieties of readings in the oldest Armenian
MSS. is due to the fact that more than one swe copy was brought from Constan-
tinople on which to base the final revision.

152 OTHER VERSIONS.

is but an eighteenth century codex. The collation of the New
Testament in the eighth edition of Tischendorf s N. T. is accurate
so far as it goes, but is far from being exhaustive or based on a con-
sensus of the oldest MSS. Old codices of the Armenian Gospels
are very common, and the present writer knows of as many as
eight, none of them later than the year a.d. 1000 ; of four of
these he has complete collations. The rest of the N. T. is only
found in codices of the whole Bible, which are rare and always
written in minuscules, never in uncials as are the Gospels. He
knows of no copies of the whole Bible older than the twelfth
century.

Two further questions call for brief answer : — 1. Have we the
Armenian version as it left the hands of the fifth century trans-
lators ? 3. Did the fifth century version comprise the whole of
the Old and New Testament 1

In regard to the first question, it must be admitted as probable
that changes were subsequently made, at least in the New
Testament, in the way both of omission and addition ; e. g. in
St. Luke xxii. 44, out of four very early uncial codices col-
lated by the writer, the words: eyevero be 6 Ibp&s avrov ixrd
dpoix^oi alixaros KaTaj3aCvovT€s eirt ttjv yrjv, are found only in one,
and that one the earliest, being dated 902 A.D. The words which
precede &<pdri 8 — 'eirpoarj-vxeTo are omitted in all four of them. We
may infer that ver. 44 was in the original version, g,nd was omitted
from the three codices for doctrinal reasons. The additions
made to the text after the fifth century are easier to detect;
because they only come in some MSS. and not in others, and
also because there is so much discrepancy of readings between
those codices which add them, that they are at once seen to be
lacunas supplied by diflPerent hands. This is the case, for
example, with the end of St. Mark's Gospel, which only comes in
one of the four codices mentioned, namely in the oldest
Edschmiadzin Codex, under the heading ' of the Elder Ariston,'
which may refer to Aristion, teacher of Papias, or to Ariston of
Pella. The case is the same with the episode of the woman
taken in adultery. For the settlement of such points there
is wanted a careful collation of the oldest codices.

In answer to the other question we may state, without enter-
ing into the proof of it, that the fifth century version included
all the books of the Old and New Testament save the third book

ARMENIAN. -[53

of Ezra, Esther; Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, and perhaps
the Maccabees. For as we read in Elisaeus that Vartan Mami-
konean in the middle of the fifth century inspired his troops to
deeds of valour against the Persians by reading to them the
Book of Maccabees, we may fairly infer that that also was
already then rendered. It may be added that the Psalms were
rendered for church use prior to the rest of the Bible, and were
translated afresh by Mesrop and his disciples; also that the
Book of Eevelations was translated twice. The double transla-
tion of both these books is a fact which can be traced in various
MSS.

One other point must be noticed. From the history of Moses
of Chorene, it is not clear what were the imperfections of the
Armenian version, to remedy which Moses was sent to Alexandria.
We cannot suppose that Mesrop and Sahak and Eznik, and the
other doctors who had already translated the Greek codices
brought from Byzantium, were incompetent Greek scholars.
The object therefore of Moses' voyage to Alexandria was probably
that he might add to the Armenian text the Sections of Ammo-
nius, and also the asterisks and obeli of Origen's Hexaplaric
copy ^ The Ammonian Sections are found in all Armenian New
Testaments, and in some copies of the Bible the Origenian marks
as well ; for instance, in Codex 3270 of the Bibliotheca Vindo-^
bonensis. There is no evidence that the Armenians ever used
a version of Tatian's Diatessaron.

The following is a list — not exhaustive — of the oldest known
codices of the Armenian Gospels, or 'Avetaran': —

1. In the Library of the Lazareffski Institute in Moscow, written in
large uncials on parchment, dated in the year 336 of the Armenian era
= A.D. 887. Size, 37-75 x 28 cent.- ; 229 folios.

2. In the Library of the Mechitarists in the island of San Lazaro, in
Venice, an uncial codex, on parchment, written in the year 351 of the
Armenian era ^ A. n. 902.

3. In the same Library, on parchment, in large uncials, dated 1006.

4. In the same Library, in large uncials, on parchment, undated, but
evidently older than No. 2.

5. In the Patriarchal Library of Edschmiadzin in Russian Armenia,
No. 222 of the printed catalogue of Jacob Kareneantz (Tiflis, 1863).

* This is the conclusion at which P. P. Car^kiu arrives. See his ' Catalogue of
Ancient Armenian Translations,' Tenioe, 1889, p. 228.

154 OTHER VERSIONS.

This book is bound in ivory covers, carved, as it would seem, in the
Eavennese style in the fifth or sixth century. In large uncials, on
parchment, written a.d. 989.

6. In the same Library is No. 223, an uncially written parchment
codex. The earliest of the colophons dates from a.d. 1260 and is in
majuscule, but the codex itself seems to be at least two centuries and
a half earlier.

7. In the same Library, No. 229, written in minuscule, on parchment,
A.D. 1035.

8. 9. In the same Library, Nos. 224, 225, in large uncials, on parch-
ment, presumably as old as the eleventh century, but undated.

1 0. In Tiflis, in an Armenian church. In large uncials, on parchment.
Undated, but certainly prior to A.D. 1000.

11. In the Library of tjie British Museum, in large uncials, on parch-
ment, undated. Probably of the ninth century, but not after the tenth,
according to Dr. Baronean, author of the British Museum Catalogue.

12. In Karin or Erzepoum, in large uncials, on parchment. Dated
A.D. 986.

13. In the Library of the Fathers of St. Anthony, in Constantinople.
Dated a.d. 960.

14. In the island monastery of Sevfin, on the lake of that name in
Eussian Armenia. In large uncials, op parchment. Written during
primacy of Vahan, circa a.d, 966.

15. In uncials, on parchment; written in Macedonia, under the
Emperor Basil, A.D. 1011. (Carekin, Catalogue des Traductions, omits
to specify in what library.)

16. Bibliothfeque Nationale in Paris. Codex Armenus VII contains
the Four Gospels. Codex Bombyc, litteris uncialibus scriptus.

17. In the same Library, Cod. Arm. VIII. Membranaceus, litteris
uncialibus scriptus.

(3) The Ethiopio Version (Eth.).

The Ethiopic translation of the Bible is assigned by Guidi to
the end of the fifth, or beginning of the sixth century, the time
at ■which Chiistianity became the dominant religion in Abyssinia.
That religion after a period of decadence began to flourish again
in the twelfth century, but in dependence on the Patriarchate of
Alexandria. The two principal classes of Ethiopic Biblical MSS.
are connected with these periods respectively; the first class
being derived from the Greek text before, and ihe latter
after the Alexandrian recension. The corrections, however, vary
in different copies, and appear to be the result of desultory rather

ETHIOPIC. 155

than of systematic alteration. The MSS. of the Ethiopic N. T.
are rarely complete ; ordinarily the Gospels, the Epistles of
St. Paul, and the Catholic Epistles with the Acts and the
Apocalypse constitute separate volumes. The oldest copy of the
Gospels would seem to be no. ^2 of the Bibliothfeque Nationale in
Paris, written in the reign 01 Yekuno Amlak ; whereas MS. 33
of the same collection represents the later text. Examples of
the different recensions are given by Guidi, Atti della E.
Academia dei Lincei : Classe di scienze morali &c., iv. 1888, from
whom most of the above statements are taken.

Copies of the N. T., especially of the Gospels, are to be found
in most collections of Ethiopic MSS. ; see especially Wright,
Ethiopic MSS. of the British Museum, pp. 23-39, and Zotenberg,
Catalogue des MSS. ^fithiopiens de la Bibliothfeque Nationale
(nos. 32-48; in the preface to this latter work a list of other
collections are given) ; also Dillmann, Abessinische Handschriften
der Konigliehen Bibliothek zu Berlin (no. 20, the four Gospels ;
21, the Gospel of St. John) ; D'Abbadie, Catalogue Raisonn^ de
MSS. fithiopiens (Paris, 1859 ; nos. 2, 47, 82, 95, 113, 173, the
four Gospels; no. 119, St. Paul's Epistles; no. 164, Catholic
Epp., Apoc, and Acts) ; Dillmann, Catalogus MSS. Aethiop. in
Bibliotheca Bodleiana, nos. 10-15 ; Fr. Miiller, Aethiop. Hand-
schriften der K.K. Hof bibliothek in Wien (Z.D.M.G., xvi.
p. 554, no. V, the Gospels ; no. vi, St. John's Gospel) ; ' Bulletin
Scientifique de S. P^tersbourg,' ii. 302 (account of a MS. of the
Gospels in the Asiatic Institute at St. Petersburg), iii. 148 (account
of a MS. of the four Gospels, bearing the date 78 = 1426 a.d., in
the Public Library at St. Petersburg, and another of St. John's
Gospel).

The Ethiopic N. T. was first printed in Rome, 1548, cum
epistola Pauli ad Hebraeos tantum, cum concordantiis Evangeli-
starum Eusebii et numeratione omnium verborum eorundem.
Quae omnia curavit Fr. Petrus Ethyops auxilio priorum sedente
Paulo iii. Pont. Max. et Claudio illius regni imperatore (edition of
Tasfa Sion). The remaining thirteen Epistles of St. Paul were
printed in 1549. This edition was reproduced in the London
Polyglott. Another was issued by T. P. Piatt (for the Bible
Society) in 1830, reprinted 1844 and 1874. These editions are
based on MSS. containiug mixed recensions, and are therefore of
no critical value.

156 OTHER VERSIONS.

(4) The Georgian Version (Georg.).

The Church of the Iberians was founded during the reign of
Constantine according to tradition ; though, if we consider how
intimate and frequent had been from a much earlier period their
intercourse with the Greeks, we may safely infer that the seeds
of Christianity had been long before sown among them. There
is no certain evidence of the date at which they translated the
Scriptures; but it is probable that their version of the New
Testament -was made in the fifth and sixth centuries ; and that it
was made from a Greek text the most perfunctory examination
suffices to prove. According to Armenian historians of the fifth
century, St. Mesrop, at the same time that he invented the
Armenian characters and made the Armenian version for his own
countrymen, fulfilled the same service for the Georgians also. In
this tradition, however, the Georgians do not concur ; and, no
doubt, rightly, seeing that their ancient alphabet and their version
are alike independent of the Armenian. It is said by some native
Georgian scholars that before the tenth century a revision was
made of their version, in order to make it more complete.

The present writer knows of no manuscript of the entire Bible
in Europe except at Mount Athos, where there is one reputed to
be of the tenth century. Others are preserved in the Convents
of the Holy Cross at Jerusalem, and of Mount Sinai. In the
Vatican Library there is a codex of the New Testament, neatly
written on parchment in majuscule, parts of which the present
writer has collated with the printed text. This codex is at least
as old as the thirteenth century, and in the^oUations below is if^^
referred to as a. Beside this codex the writer has examined in
the Georgian Library at Tiflis three very ancient codices of the '
Gospels, written in uncials on parchment. These books were
smaller in size than are, as a rule, the copies of the Gospels used
in Eastern Churches. ,, ^^_
\t/UL^ Of Ahe ac cornpanymgi collati ons, nos. i-iv are made from

_,.,,y^] them, and the passages collated were photographed by the present
writer. These photographs, which represent the originals on
a reduced scale, have been deposited by him in the Bodleian
Library for the inspection of the curious. The text referred to
as h is probably of the tenth century or earlier ; the one referred

■L^Pn

GEORGIAN. 157

to as c cannot be much later than the eleventh, while that
indicated by d must belong to the twelfth, and is the most
beautifully written of them.

The Bible was not printed in Georgian until the year 1743 at
Moscow in large folio. It is a rare volume, and has never been
reprinted. The character is that called ecclesiastical or priestly
majuscule, which differs wholly from the civil characters and can,
as a rule, be read by the priests only. The New Testament and
Psalms have been reprinted at various times from this original
edition, both in priestly and civil characters, and of the latter
kind very good and cheap copies can be obtained at the British
and Foreign Bible Society, printed, however, at Tiflis. It is said
that the edition of 1743 was conformed to the Slavonic version
of the Bible ; and if this were true, it would, of course, impair
its value for critical purposes. Of this statement, however, the
writer's collations, so far as they go, afford no proof. Such
variations as there are between the printed edition and the
manuscript texts are notified in these collations. The point,
however, could easily be settled by a thorough comparison of
the printed text with the Slavonic.

The MSS. of Tiflis include the last verses of Mark, and the
Vatican MS. contains the narrative of the woman taken in
adultery, but places it after ver. 44, instead of after ver. 53 of
the seventh chapter of John. The printed edition places it after
ver. 52, and this uncertainty as to where to insert the narrative,
in itself indicates that it is a later interpolation. The printed
text also contains the text about the three witnesses ; but it is
pieced into the context in an awkward and ungrammatical
way ; and whether it is in any MS. the writer cannot say. (The ^^<^-«^«-
foUowing/all too brief collations prove that the printed text fairly
represents the MSS. ; from which, indeed, it differs very little
except in its more modern orthography. It is certain, however,
that the most ancient MSS. of this version must be collated and
a critical text of it prepared, before it can be quite reliably used
as an early witness to the Greek text in regard to any particular
points. Where the earliest Greek authorities waver as to the
particles by which the parts of the narrative shall be connected
— some, e. g. giving /cat, others be, others ovv — the Georgian
constantly passes abruptly to the new matter without any
connecting particle at all — and this, although as a language

158 OTHER VERSIONS.

Georgian is richer in such connecting particles than is Greek.
This peculiarity of the version, which is also shared by the old
Armenian version, seems to prove that it was made from
a primitive text, in which editors had not yet begun to smooth
away the sudden transitions.

(5) The Slavonic Version (Slav.^).

This version of the Bible is ascribed to Cyril and Methodius,
who lived at the end of the ninth century. It is uncertain,
however, how much of the New Testament was translated at
that date, and how much was the work of a later time. The
manuscripts of the version exist in two characters called Glago-
litic and Cyrillic : of these it is now generally agreed that the
former is the earlier. In considering the version from the point
of view of the textual criticism of the New Testament, we need
not deal with its later history except in so far as that throws
light- on its original form. The chief points to which reference
will be made will be (i) the different Manuscripts in which the
version exists, with their distinctive characteristics, and the
evidence they afford as to the earliest form — the Urteoct — of the
version, and (ii) the Greek text presypposed by the version in the
form in which we have it.

It will be convenient to divide the New Testament into three
component parts, (i) the Gospels, (ii) the Acts and Epistles, or
the Apostol as it is called in Slavonic, (iii) the Apocalypse.
There can be little doubt that the Gospels were the earliest part
to be translated or that this translation was made for liturgical
purposes. This last point explains the great preponderance of

' Among the chief authorities on the Slavonic version are the following : —
(i) ropcKifi H HeBocrpyeBt, onHoame caaBancKEXx pyKonEcefl MocKOBCKOfi

CHHOaajIbHOfi Ba6ld0T!6TSM. MocKBa, 1855.

(ii) AoTa(j[)i.eBi., Onun. HCiopiii 6H6nH bt> Poccih wb cbhsh cab npocBimemetri.
H HpaBaMH. . C. neTep6ypn., 1892.

(iii) Voskresenski, XapaKiepHCTHiecKlH nepiH raaBHHXt peflaKi^B: cjtaBHH-
CKaro nepeBoaa EBanrejiiH.

(iv) Voskresenski, J]j)eBHifl caaBSHCidfi nepeBo;i^ Anociona h ero cy^tdH
HO XV Bfaa.

(v) Oblak, Die Kirchenslavische Uebersetzung der Apocalypse [in the ' Archiv
fur Slavische Philologie,' xiii. pp. 321-361].

(vi) Prolegomena to the editions of the Codex Marianus and the Codex
Zogi-aphensis, &c., by Jagic.

(vii) Kaluzniacki, Monumenta Linguae Falaeoslavouicae, vol. i.

SLAVONIC. 159

MSS. of the version in which the Gospels are arranged in the
form of a lectionary ^

Amongst the earliest manuscripts of the Gospels are the
Codex Zographensis, Codex Marianus, and the Codex Asse-
manicus. The two first Jagic ascribes to the tenth or eleventh
century. All these are written for the most part in the
Glagolitic character. Besides these, mention must be made of
the Ostromir Codex, written in Cyrillic characters, by Gregory,
a deacon at Novgorod, and dating from the year 1056-7.
In considering the distinctive characteristics of these manu-
scripts of the version, the first point to notice is that they
each preserve certain dialectical forms and expressions by
which their place of origin and to some extent their date can be
determined. Thus Miklosich regards the Codex Zographensis
and Codex Assemanicus as preserving Bulgarico-Slovenish forms,
the Ostromir Codex as representative of Russo-Slovenish, and
so on. It is mainly in these particulars that the manuscripts
difier, though there are also other differences by means of which
it has been determined that some Codices, especially those in the
Glagolitic character, preserve the version in a more original form
than others, as for example the Ostromir Codex. These differences
consist ^, (i) in orthography, (ii) in the fact that the later forms of
the version translate Greek words left untranslated in the older
forms, (iii) in the substitution of later and easier words for
archaisms. It may also be noted that alterations are more
numerous, as might be expected, in copies of the Gospels made
for liturgical purposes than in other copies.

The same remarks would be true of the second part of the
Bible, the Apostol. This is pointed out by Voskresenski in the
book to which reference has been made, but which is known
to the writer of these lines only from a review. A very careful
examination of the text of the ' Apostol,' based on the manu-
scripts of the Synodal Library, is made by Gorski and
Nevostruiev in the work referred to above, pp. 292 ff.

Oblak has examined the Slavonic version of the Apocalypse,
of which the manuscripts are fewer and later. The earliest

' In the Synodal Library at Moscow this proportion is as nine to two, and in
another library as twelve to one. See OnEcaHie caaBaHCKEDCii pyKonHcefl h i. ^.
(as above), p. 299.

' Kaluzniacki, I. c, p. xlv, gives instances.

l6o OTHER VERSIONS.

manuscript Is ascribed to the thirteenth century, but the textual
corruption which it exhibits in comparison with other manuscripts
requires that the version which it embodies should be referred
at least to the twelfth century. We do indeed find a quotation
of the Apocalypse (ix. 14) as early as the Isbornik of Sviatoslav
of the year 1073, but in a form so different from the MSS. of the
version now extant, that we must regard it as a quotation from
memory. The MSS. have many small variations, sometimes
merely dialectical, sometimes based on a different Greek text.
They also show marks in places of having been corrected with
the help of the Latin. But in spite of all their variations Oblak
believes that all the manuscripts are to be referred to one common
translation made from a Greek text of the Constantinopolitan
type, which has been here and there corrupted by Western
influence.

It may be noted in conclusion that the earliest dated complete
manuscript of the Gospels is dated 1144, the earliest manuscript
of the whole Bible, a.d. 1499, and that the earliest printed
edition is the famous Ostrog Bible of 1581.

It remains to say something of the Greek text underlying the
Slavonic version, for this is the special point of view from which
the versions are being here considered. The instances will all be
taken from the Gospels, though others might have been added
from those collected by Gorski. In the first place it is necessary
to draw attention to the fact that for critical purposes a modern
edition of the version will be found insufficient. The following are
cases ^ where the edition published by the British and Foreign
Bible Society, probably based on the Textus Receptus, is mis-
leading as to the real original reading of the version. In St. Matt,
xi. 2 Godd. Assem., Zograph., Ostrom., all imply the reading bid,
the modern edition bvo : in St. John i. 28 the MSS. have Bethany,
the edition Bethabara ; in St. John vii. 39 the MSS. insert, the
edition omits, beboixevov ; in St. Matt. xxv. 2 the MSS. put ynoipai
before (ppovijxoL, the edition inverts the order. The Ostromir
Codex presents a later form of the version, and so we find
instances where the other two MSS., just referred to, preserve
what is probably a better reading. Thus in St. Luke ii. 3 they
have ol yovus avrov, the Ostromir 'la>crrj(f> koI ^ [ntrrip avTov ; in

^ See Jagi6, Codex Zographensis, pp. xxvii ff.

ARABIC. l6i

St. John ix. 8 they have ■Kpoa-aCr'qs, it has tu(/)Xo's ; in St. John xix.
14 they have rpiV?;, it reads eVr?? ; in St. John xxi. 15 they have
apvCa, it has -npo^aTa. Again there are cases where one MS. of the
version stands. alone. Thus Codex Zogr. stands alone, as against
Assem. and Ostrom., in omitting St. Luke xiv. 24, and inserting
BeurepoTTpcoTO) in St. Luke vi. 1. Again in the choice of Slavonic
■words for the same Greek original^ Cod. Zogr. will agree with
Codex Assem. against Codex Ostrom., though where the Codex
Assemanicus is freer in its rendering, the Ostromii- Codex and
Codex Zographensis agree. Sometimes again the Codex Zogra-
- phensis is alone in curious readings which seem to be conflations
of the texts found in the other two manuscripts, or based on a
conflate Greek text.

This version and the various manuscripts which contain it
have received most attention from Slavonic philologists engaged
in examining the earliest monuments of their language ; but
the readings which have been given will be enough to show
that it does not deserve to be dismissed, as summarily as has
been sometimes the case, from the number of those versions
which have a value for purposes of the Textual Criticism of the
New Testament.

(6) The Arabic Veesion (Arab.).

Arabic versions (Arab.) are many, though of the slightest
possible critical iniportance ; their Uterary histoiy, therefore,
need not be traced with much minuteness. A notice is quoted
from Bar-hebraeus (Assemani, Bibl. Or., ii. 335) to the efiect that
John, Patriarch of the Monophy sites from 631-640, translated
the ' Gospel ' from Syriac into Arabic ; and some scholars have
believed in the existence of a pre-Mohammedan version of parts
at least of the New Testament on other grounds; from such
a version (wiitten in the ' Hebrew ' character) in the opinion of
Sprenger (Das Leben und die Lehre Muhammads, i. 131) come
the verses of St. John's Gospel (xv. 23-37, xvi. 1), cited by Ibn
Ishaq (ob. 768) in his ' Life of Mohammed ' (ed. Wiistenfeld,
i. 150) ^. These verses are evidently translated from the (Jeru.-
salem ?) Syriac ; but the translation of the Gospel, from the Syriac

' The statement that John Bishop of Seyille translated the Bible into Arabic
in A. D. 719 is disproved by Lagarde (Die vier Evangelien Arabisch, p. xv).
VOL. II. M

1 62 OTHER VERSIONS.

into Arabic, existing in a Leipzig MS. brought by Tischendorf
from the East and described at length by Gildemeister (De
evangeliis in Arabicum e simpliei Syriaco translatis, Bonn, 1865)
is shown by internal evidence to be posterior to Islam
(pp. 30 sq.). The Arabic versions of the Gospel existing in
MS. are divided by Guidi (Atti della E. Academia dei Lincei,
classe di scienze morali &c., 1888, 1-30) into five sorts : (1) those
made directly from the Greek; (2) made directly or corrected
from the Peshitto ; (3) made directly or corrected from the Coptic;
(4) MSS. of two distinct eclectic recensions made in the Alex-
andrian Patriarchate in the thirteenth century ; (5) MSS. (chiefly
derived from the Syriac) which are distinguished by their style ;
being in rhymed prose or elegant Arabic. MSS. of the first sort
can all, he says, be traced to the convent of St. Saba near
Jerusalem, and are preceded by the lives of its founders,
St. Eutimius and St. Saba ; the version they contain is to be
ascribed to the time of the Caliph Mamun (ninth century). Of
the MSS. of class 4, one set represents a recension made by Ibn
El-Assal, circ. 1250 ; while another represents a less elaborate
recension made shortly afterwards, in which the passages omitted
in the other were restored, while marginal notes recorded their
omission in other versions. Versions of the fifth class were
made in the tenth, fourteenth, and seventeenth centuries. A list
of MSS. containing the difierent recensions of all these classes is
given by Guidi, I. c, pp. 30-33.

The printed texts all represent varieties of the second eclectic
recension of class 4, of which five editions are enumerated by
Gildemeister(Lc., pp. 42, 3, and iv). 1. Roman edition of the Gos-
pels from the Medicean Press, 1591 (ar.''), edited by J. Baptista
Raymundi, some copies having a Latin translation by Antonius
Sionita. The MS. on which this edition was based is unknown.
2. Edition of Thomas ErpeniUs (1584-1624, Leyden, 1616, con-
taining the whole New Testament (ar.^). This edition was
based on the Leydeh MS., Scaliger 217, written in Egypt in the
year of the Martyrs 1059 (a.d. 1342-3) ; two other manuscripts
also employed by Erpenius for the Gospels are now in the
Cambridge University Library (G. 5. 33, and G. 5. 27, written
A.D. 1285). A third MS. employed for this edition was in the
Carshunic character. The Acts and Pauline Epistles, the Epistles
of St. James, St. Peter i and St. John i in this edition are trans-

ARABIC. 163

lated from the Peshitto ; tlie remaining Catholic Epistles and the
Apocalypse are from some other source ; the latter shows some
remarkable agreement with the Memphitie (Hug, Einleitung in
das N. T., pp. 433-5). 3. Edition of the whole N. T. in the
Paris Polyglott (ar.P), 1645, reprinted with little alteration in
the London Polyglott (1657). Gildemeister, I. c, proves against
Lagarde {I.e., xi) that this recension in the Gospels is not an
interpolated reprint of the Eoman edition, but is based on a MS.
similar to Paris Anc. f. 37 (of a.d. 1619) and Coisl. 239 (new
Suppl. Ar. 27) described by Scholz, 'Bibl. Krit. Eeise,' pp. 56, 58.
The Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse follow the Greek, but are
by another translator. 4. Edition of the whole N. T. in the
Carshunic character (Kome, 1703), edited by Faustus Naironus,
for the use of the Maronites, from a MS. brought from Cyprus,
reprinted Paris, 1827 ; the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse repre-
sent the same version as that of Erpenius, but in a different
recension. 5. Edition of the four Gospels from a Vienna MS.
(previously described by S. C. Storr, Dissertatio inauguralis
critica de evangeliis Arabicis, Tubingen, 1875, p. 17 sq.), by
P. de Lagarde (Die vier Evangelien Arabisch, Leipzig, 1864). The
MS. contains various readings from the Coptic, Syriac, and Latin
(according to Lagarde, Gildemeister more naturally renders rwml
by Greek). The editor has prefixed a table of variants between
his text and that of Erpenius, but regards the relation of the
former to the original as involving questions too complicated for
immediate discussion (p. xxxi).

Extracts from MSS. of Arabic versions in French and Italian
libraries are given by J. M. A. Scholz, Biblisch-Kritische Reise,
Leipzig and Sorau, 1823 ; a description of several others, some of
great antiquity, is to be found in Tischendorf's ' Anecdota Sacra
et Profana,-" pp. 70-73 (2nd ed.) ; and Professor Rendel Harris,
in ' Biblical Fragments from Sinai ' (Cambridge, 1890) has pub-
lished a facsimile of a fragment of an Arabic version from
a bilingual MS. of the ninth century ; the version whence it is
derived agrees with none of those that have been published, and
was probably older than any of them.

The repeated revision and correction which these translations
have undergone (Gildemeister, I. c, 1-3), while they give evidence
of the industry and zeal of the Arabic-speaking Christians, have
made scholars despair of employing them for critical purposes ;

M 2

164 OTHER VERSIONS.

' they rather serve,' says Gildemeister, ' to illustrate the history
of biblical and Christian studies.'

(7) The Anglo-Saxon Veesion (Sax.).

There is but one known version of the four Gospels (the only
portion of the N. T. that was translated into A.-S.) ; this version
was made, probably in the South- West of England at or near
Bath, in the last quarter of the tenth century. It is preserved in
four MSS. : (Corp.) Corpus Christi Coll. Camb. MS. 140 ; (B)
Bodleian Lib. MS. 441 ; (C) Cotton MS. Otho C. I (seriously
injured by fire), and (A) Camb. Univ. Lib. MS. li. 2. 11. Of
these the first three may be dated, in round number, about the
year 1000 ; the fourth (A) belongs to the following half-century.
The Bodl. Lib. has also recently acquired a fragment of four
leaves of St. John's Gospel, which agrees closely with A.
[Published by Napier in 'Archiv f. n. Sprachen,' vol. Ixxxvii.
p. 255 f.]

It may also be mentioned that there are in the Brit. Mus.
two additional copies of this version (Bibl. Reg. MS. I. A. xiv,
and Hatton MS. 38). These belong to a period after the Conquest
and have no critical value, for the first is copied from B, And the
second is copied from the first.

This version is based upon a type of the Vulgate MSS. that
has not yet been definitely determined. Old Latin readings
make it certain that the original MS. was of the mixed type.

Next in importance to this version are the two following Latin
fj/; MSS. of the four Gospels, with an interlinear Anglo-Saxon gloss.
J> ^ (1) MS. Nero D. 4 (the Lindisfarne MS., also known as the Durham

jw*^ Book). The Latin was written by Eadfrith, bishop of Lindisfarne
698-721 ; the interlinear gloss being about two and a half
centuries later, made near Durham about the year 950. (2) The
Rushworth MS. (Bodl. Lib. Auct. D. ii. 19). The Latin was
written by the scribe Macregol, probably in the eighth century.
The gloss, by the scribes Farman and Owun, is referred to the
latter half of the tenth century. These two Latin texts differ
but slightly ; they are also of the Vulgate types.

All the MSS. that have now been mentioned are published in
one volume (of four parts) by Professor W. W. Skeat : ' The
Holy Gospels in Anglo-Saxon, Northumbrian, and Old Mercian

.^'

PRANKISH ; PERSIC. 165

Versions, synoptically arranged, with collations exhibiting all
the readings of all the MSS. ; together with the Early Latin
Version as contained in the Lindisfarne MS. ; collated with the .
Latin Version in the Eushworth MS. Cambridge : University
Press, 1871-1887.' Dr. James W. Bright has published an
edition of St. Luke's Gospel of the A.-S. Version, Oxford, 1892,
and has in preparation a critical edition of the entire Version
[which has been published recently]. The earlier editions of the
Anglo-Saxon Gospels are by Archbishop Parker, 1571 ; Dr.
Marshall (rector of Lincohi College), 1665 ; Benjamin Thorpe,
1842; Dr. Joseph Bosworth, 1865.

(8) The Fkankish Version (Fr.).

A Frankish version of St. Matthew, from a manuscript of
the ninth century at St. Gall, in the Frankish dialect of the
Teutonic, was published by J. A. Schmeller in 1827. Tischendorf
(N. T., Proleg., p. 225) thinks it worthy of examination, but
does not state whether it was translated from the Greek or
Latin : the latter supposition is the more probable.

(9) Persic Versions (Pers.).

Persic versions of the Gospels only, in print, are two:
(1) one ia Walton's Polyglott (pers.!") with a Latin version
by Samuel Clarke (which C. A. Bode thought it worth his
while to reconstruct, Helmstedt, 1750-51, with a learned
Preface), obviously made from the Peshitto Syriac, which the
Persians had long used (' yet often so paraphrastic as to claim
a character of its own/ Malan, ubi supra, p. xi), 'interprete
Symone F. Joseph Taurinensi,' and taken from a single manu-
script belonging to E. Pocock ^ probably dated A. D. 1341. This
version may prove of some use in restoring the text of the
Peshitto. (3) The second, though apparently modern [xiv?]
was made from the Greek (pers.^). Its publication was com-
menced in 1652 by Abraham Wheelocke, Professor of Arabic
and Anglo-Saxon and University Librarian at Cambridge, at the
expense of Sir Th. Adams, the generous and loyal alderman

' Edward Pocock, Professor of Hebrew at Oxford (1648-91) and a great Oriental
scholar, should be distinguished from Richard Pococke, an Eastern traveller and
Bishop of Meath, who died in 1765.

l66 OTHER VERSIONS.

of London. The basis (as appears from the volume itself) was
an Oxford codex (probably Laud. A. 96 of the old notation),
which Wheelocke, in his elaborate notes at the end of each
chapter, compared with Pocock's and with a third manuscript at
Cambridge (Gg. v. 26), dated 1014 of the Hegira (a. d. 1607).
On Wheelocke's death in 1653 only 108 pages (to Matt, xviii. 6)
were printed, but his whole text and Latin version being found
ready for the press, the book was published with a second
title-page, dated London, 1657, and a short Preface by an
anonymous editor (said to be one Pierson), who in lieu of
Wheelocke's notes, which break off after Matt, xvii., appended
a simple collation of the Pocock manuscript from that place.
The Persians have older versions, parts of both Testaments,
still unpublished. There is another copy of the Persian
Gospels at Cambridge, which once belonged to Archbishop
Bancroft, and was brought from Lambeth in 1646, but was not
restored in 1662 with the other books belonging to the Lambeth
Library.

CHAPTER VI.

ON THE CITATIONS FEOM THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT OR ITS

VERSIONS MADE BY EARLY ECCLESIASTICAL "WRITERS,

ESPECIALLY BY THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS.

1. "yt/"E miglit at first sight be inclined to suppose that the
numerous quotations from the New Testament contained
in the remains of the Fathers of the Church and other Christian
writers from the first century of our era downwards, would be
more useful even than the early versions, for enabling us to
determine the character of the text of Scripture current in those
primitive times, from which no manuscripts of the original have
come down to us ^. Unquestionably the testimony afforded by
these venerable writings will be free from some of the objections
that so much diminish the value of translations for critical
purposes which have been stated at the commencement of this
volume : and the use made of it by Dean Burgon in his remark- t^ ,^, y'i'i
able volume entitled the ' Eevision Eevised ^,' has shown scholars
how vast a body of valuable illustrations has received inadequate
attention. But not to insist on the fact that many important
passages of the New Testament have not been cited at all in any
very ancient work now extant, this species of evidence labours
under difficulties peculiarly its own. Not only is this kind of
testimony fragmentary and not (like that of versions) continuous,
so that it often fails us where we should most wish for informa-
tion : but the Fathers were better theologians than critics ; they

* I have been obliged to alter the first paragraph in this chapter because of
Dr. Scrivener's private confession to myself of the great value of Dean Burgon's
services in this province of Sacred Textual Criticism. I am convinced that he
could not have continued to maintain an opinion so adverse to the value of early
citations as that which he formed when people w^ere not sufBciently aware of
the wealth of illustrative evidence that lay ready to their hands. As Editor
I owe very much in this chapter, both to the express teaching in Dean Burgon's
great book, and to his method of argument in respect to patristic citations. The
Dean did not leave this province at all as he found it.

'^ The Revision Eevised, by John William Burgon, B.D., Dean of Chichester.
John Murray, 1883.

l68 ON THE PATRISTIC CITATIONS

sometimes quoted loosely, or from memory, often no more of
a passage than their immediate purpose required ; and what they
actually wrote has been found liable to change on the part of
copyists and unskilful editors. But when all is considered, the
Fathers must be at least held under due limitations to be wit-
nesses to the readings found in the codices which they used. If
theirs is secondary evidence, it is nevertheless in many cases
virtually older than any that can be had from MSS. of the entire
text. The fewness of early MSS. adds importance to other early
testimony. And the strength of this kind of evidence is found
at the highest, when the issue is of a somewhat broader character
than usual, and when a large number of quotations are found to
corroborate testimony from MSS. and the testimony of Versions.
In fact the strength of their evidence is to be seen especially in
three aspects: First, they supply us with numerous codices, though
at second hand, at a very early date ; secondly, there is no doubt
whatever that the date of the codices used by them is not later
than when they wrote, and their own date is usually a matter of
no question ; and thirdly, they help us to assign the locality to
remarkable readings ^. In other words, the unknown MS.
derives life and character from the Father who uses it,^- On
the other hand, the same author perpetually cites the selfsame
text under two or more various forms ; in the Gospels it is
often impossible to determine to which of the three earlier
ones reference is made ; and, on the whole, where Scriptural
quotations from ecclesiastical writers are single and unsupported,
they may safely be disregarded altogether. An express citation,
however, by a really careful Father of the first four or five
centuries (as Origen, for example), if supported by manuscript
authority, and countenanced by the best versions, claims our
respectful attention, and powerfully vindicates the reading
which it favours^. In fact, like Versions, Patristic citations

' See some very thoughtful and cautious remarks by the Eev. LI. J. M.. Bebb
in the second volume of the Oxford ' Studia Biblica (et Ecclesiastica).' Mr. Bebb's
entire Article on ' The Evidence of the Early Versions and Patristic Quotations
on the Text of the Books of the New Testament ' is well worth careful study.

' ' Dated codices, in fact they are, to all intents and purposes.' Burgon,
Revision Revised, p. 292. ' Every Father is seen to be a dated witness and an
independent authority,' p. 297.

' I am glad to be able to coincide thus far with the judgement of Mr. Ham-
mond, who says : ' The value of even the most definite Patristic citation is
only corroborative. Standing by itself, any such citation might mean no more

FROM THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 169

cannot be taken primarily to establish any reading. But they
are often invaluable in supplying support to manuseriptal
authority, whether by proving a primitive antiquity, or in
demonstrating by an overwhelming body of testimony that the
passage or reading was accepted in all ages and in many
provinces of the earlier church. Frequently also, they are of
unquestionable use, when they bear witness in a less striking
manner, or in smaller number.

2. The practice of illustrating the various readings of Scripture
from the reliques of Christian antiquity is so obvious and reason-
able, that all who have written critical annotations on the sacred
text have resorted to it, from Erasmus downwards : the Greek or
Latin commentators are appealed to in four out of the five
marginal notes found in the Complutensian N. T. When
Bishop Fell, however, came to prepare the first edition of the
Greek Testament attended with any considerable apparatus for
improving the text, he expressly rejected 'S. Textus loca ab
antiquis Patribus aliter quam pro recepto more laudata,' from
which the toil of such a task did not so much deter him, ' quam
cogitatio quod minus utile esset futurum iisdem insistere.'
(N. T. 1675, Praef.). ' Venerandi enim illi scriptores,' he adds,
' de verborum apicibus non multum soliciti, ex memoriS, quae ad
institutum suum factura videbantur passim allegabant ; unde
factum ut de prisca lectione ex illorum scriptis nil ferfe certi
potuerit hauriri.' It is certainly to the credit of Mill's sagacity
that he did not follow his patron's example by setting aside
Patristic testimony in so curt and compendious a manner^.
Nevertheless, no one can study Mill's 'Prolegomena' without
being conscious of the fact, that the portion of them relating to the
history of the text, as gathered from ecclesiastical writers, and the
accumulation of that mass of quotations from the Fathers which
stands below his Scripture text, must have been, what he asserts,
the result of some years' labour (N. T. Proleg. § 1513) : yet these

than that the writer found the passage in his own copy, or in those examined
by him, in the form in which he quotes it. The moment, however, it is found
to be supported by other good evidence, the writer's authority may become of
immense importance ' (Outlines of Textual Criticism, p. 66, 2nd edition). His
illustration is the statement of Irenaeus in Matt. i. 18, which is discussed
below. Chap. XI. (Third Edition.)

' He speaks (N. T., Prolog., § 1478) of Bp. Fell's 'praepropera opinio;' he
merely stated as universally true what for the most part certainly is so.

170 ON THE PATRISTIC CITATIONS

are just the parts of his celebrated work that have given the least
satisfaction. The field indeed is too vast to be occupied by one
man. A whole library of authors has to be thoroughly searched ;
each cited passage must be patiently examined; the help of indices
should be employed critically and warily ; the best editions must
be used, and even then the text of the very writers is to be
corrected, so fai- as may be, by the collation of other manuscripts ^.

3. To Griesbach must be assigned the merit of being the
earliest editor of the Greek Testament who saw, or at least who
acted upon the principle, that it is far more profitable as well
as more scholarlike to do one thing well, than to attempt more
than can be performed completely and with accuracy. He was
led by certain textual theories he had adopted, and which we
shall best describe hereafter, to a close examination of the works
of Origen, the most celebrated Biblical critic of antiquity. The
result, published in the second volume of his Symbolae Griticae,
is a lasting monument both of his industry and acuteness ; and,
if not quite faultless in point of correctness, deserves to be taken
as a model by his successors. Tregelles, of whose Greek Testa-
ment we shall presently speak, has evidently bestowed much
pains on his Patristic citations ; to Eusebius of Caesarea,
especially to those portions of his works which have been
recently edited or brought to light, he has paid great attention :
but besides many others, Chrysostom has been grievously
neglected, although the subjects of a large portion of his
writings, the early date of some of his codices^, the extensive
collations of Matthaei, and the excellent modern editions of most
of his Homilies, might have sufficed to commend him to our
particular regard. The custom, commenced by Lachmann, and
adopted by Tregelles (though not uniformly by Tischendorf),
of recording the exact edition, volume, and page of the writer

* Take tlie case of Irenaeus, in some respects the most important of them all.
The editio princes of Erasmus (1526) was printed fi-om manuscripts now
unknown. The three best manuscripts are in Latin only. The oldest of them
I saw at Middle-hill, an exquisite specimen of the tenth or eleventh century,
olim Clai-omontanus ; another, of the twelfth, is in the Arundel collection in
the British Museum ; the third once belonged to Vossius.

' Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg., p. 256, 7th edition) speaks of one Wolfenbiittel
manuscript of the sixth century containing the Homilies on St. Matthew, which
he designed to publish in his ' Monumenta Sacra Inedita,' vol. vii. He indicates
its readings by ChrS"".

FROM THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. I7T.

quoted, and in important cases of copying his very words, cannot
be too mucli praised : we would suggest, however, the expediency
of further indicating, by an asterisk or some such mark, those
passages about which there can be no ambiguity as to the read-
ing adopted by the author, in order to distinguish them from
others which are of infinitely less weight and importance.

4. But the greatest step of all towards an extended use of
Patristic testimony has been taken by Dean Burgon, and since
his much lamented death the results of his labours have been
made public. In the early stages of his studies in Sacred Textual
Criticism, Burgon saw the extreme value — afterwards recognized
by Dr. Scrivener — of an exhaustive use of citations from the
Fathers and other ecclesiastical authors ; and after a conversation
with the Earl of Cranbrook, then Mr. Gathorne Hardy, he set
himself upon the vast task of collecting indices of New Testa-
ment quotations occurring in the books of those writers. ' This
involved his looking through all the Greek and Latin folios of
the Fathers, and marking the texts in the margin. Then the
folios passed into the hands of his assistants, who arranged the
references in the order of the Books of the New Testament, and
copied them out ; so that it might be only the work of a minute
to ascertain how Cyril, or Eusebius, or Gregory of Nyssa quoted
such a text ^,' and how many times it was quoted by the Father
in question. They were revised and enlarged some years after
their first collection. The striking use to which Burgon put
his own indices has been already noticed. After his death the
sixteen stout volumes containing them were acquired by the
authorities of the British Museum, where they have been found
to be of much use in cataloguing. Steps have been already
taken for the publication of the part relating to the Gospels with
Dean Burgon's other works on this great subject.

5. It may be convenient to subjoin an alphabetical list of the
ecclesiastical writers, both in Greek and Latin and in other
languages (with the usual abridgements for their names), which
are the most often cited in critical editions of the New Testa-
ment. The Latin authors are printed in italics, and unless they
happen to appeal unequivocally to the evidence of Greek codices,
are available only for the correction of their vernacular transla-

* life of Dean Burgon, by Dean Goulburn, p. 82, note. Murray, 3892.

172

ON THE PATRISTIC CITATIONS

tion. The dates annexed generally indicate the death of the
persons they refer to, except when 'fl.' {= floruit) is prefixed.

Chryaostom, Bp. of Constantinople,

Aldmus (Avitus), fl. 'SWtT- fdt

Ambrose, Bp. of Milan, A. n. 897
(Ambr.).

Anibrosiaster, the false Ambrose, perhaps
Hilary the Deacon, of the fourth cen-
tury (Ambrst.).

Ammonius of Alexandria, circa 438
(Ammon.) in Catenis.

Amphilochius, fl. 380. ,

Anastasius, Abbot, fl. 9S*r /

Anastasius Sinaita, fl. 570.

Andreas, Bishop of Caesarea, sixth cen-
tury? (And.)

Andreas of Crete, seventh century.

Antiochus, monk, fl. 614.

Antipater, Bp. of Bostra, fl. 450.
'^aphraates, the Syrian, fourth century.
/ Archelaus and Manes, fl. 278.

Arethas, Bp. of Caesarea Capp., tenth
century? (Areth.)

Aristides, fl. 139.

Arius, fl. 325.

Arnoiivs of Africa, 306 (Arnob.).

Asterius, fourth century.

Athanasius, Bp. of Alexandria, 373
(Ath.).

Athenagoras of Athens, 177 (Athen.).
J^f^fU^^ \Augustine, Bp. of Hippo, 430 (Aug.).
, Barnabas, first or second century?

(Barn.)

Basil, Bp. of Caesarea, 379 (Bas.).

Basil of Cilicla, fl. 497.
- /. jJ ij_f yBasil of Seleucia, fl. 440 (Bas. Sel.).
" 1 1 /Bede, the Venerable, 735 (Bede).

Caesarius of Aries, fl. 520.

Caesarius (Pseudo-) of Constantinople,
■340 (Caes.).

Candidus Isaurus, fl. 600.

Capreolus, fl. 430.

Carpathius, John, fl. 490.

Cassianus, fl. 415.
^lUkM ^Cassiodorus, 468-560 (?) (Cassiod.)

'Chromaiius, Bp, of Aquileia,
(Chrom.).

fl. 390

407 (Chrys.).
Chrysostom (Pseudo-), fl. eighth cen-
tury.
Clement of Alexandria, fl. 194 (Clem.).
Clement, Bp. of Rome, fl. 90 (Clem.

Kom.).
Clementines, the, second century.
Corderius,

Cosmas, Bp. of Maiuma, fl. 743.
Cosmas Indicopleustes, 635 (Cosm.).
Oyprian, Bp. of Carthage, 258 (Cypr.).
Cyril, Bp. of Alexandria, 444 (Cyr.).
Cyril, Bp. of Jerusalem, 386 (Cyr. Jer.).
Dalmatius, fl. 460.
Damascenus, John, 730 (Dam.) '.
Damasus, Pope, fl. 366.
Didaehe, 80-120.

Didymus of Alexandria, 370 (Did.). /_ -
Diodorus of Tarsus, fl. 380. JLiy*"*^ ■ *-
Dionysius, Bp. of Alexandria, 265

(Dion.).
Dionysius of Alexandria (Pseudo-),

third century.
Dionysius (Pseudo-) Areopagita, fifth

century (Dion. Areop.).
Dionysius Maximus, fl. 259 (?).
Ephraem the Syrian, 378 (Ephr.).
Ephraem the Syrian (Pseudo-), fourth

century.
Ephraim, Bp. of Cherson.
Epiphanius, Bp. of Cyprus, 403

(Epiph.).
Epiphanius, Deacon of Catana, fl. 787.
Erechthius, fl. 440. £u£AiyY.JU* {f '^'>
Eudocia, wife of Theodosius II, fl. 430.
Eulogius, sixth century.
Eusebius of Alexandria,
Eusebius, Bp. of Caesarea, 340 (Eua.).
Eustathius, Bp. of Antioch, fl. 350.
Eustathius, monk,

Euthalius, Bp. of Sulci, 458 (Euthal.).
Eutherius, fl. 431.
Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116 (Euthym.).

' DamP»>^ ^^. i. e. ' Joh. Damasceni parallela sacra ex cod. Kupefuc. saeculi
ferfe 8.' Tischendorf, N. T., Preface to vol. i of the eighth edition, 1869. He
promised full information in his ' Prolegomena,' which never appeared.^Here we
have a manuscript ascribed to the same century as the Father whose work it
contains.? One MS. is at Paris (collated by Mr. Eendel Harris, a.d. 1884) ;
another in Phillipps collection at Cheltenham.

FROM THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

173

Eutyehius, fl. 553.

Evagrius of Pontus, 380 (Evagr.).

Evagrius Seholasticua, the historian,

fl. 492.
Famndus,&.5i7. f,u„^/ii^,//J^^
Faustits, fl. 400. ''

Ferrandus, fl. 856.
Pulgentius of Ruspe, fl. 508 (FiUg.).
Gaudentius, fl. 405 (Gaud.).
Gelasius of Cyzicus, fl. 476.
Gennadius, fl. 459.
Germauus of Constantinople, fl. 715.
Gregentius, fl. 540.
Gregory of Nazianzus, the Divine, Bp.

of Constantinople, 389 (Naz.).
Gregory Naz. (Pseudo-).
Gregory, Bp. of Nyssa, 396 (Nyss.).
Gregory Thaumaturgus, Bp. of Neocae-

sarea, 243 (Thauma.).
Gregory the Great, Bp. of Rome, 605

(Greg.).
Haymo, Bp. of Halberstadt, ninth cen-
tury (Haym.).
Hegesippus, fl. 180. lJ{^<LcAnL''~^**^
Hermas, second century. '^^[C'T"
Rieronymus (Jerome), 420 (Hier.) or

(Jer.).
Hilary, Bp. of Aries, 429.
Hilary, Bp. of Poietiers, fl. 354 (Hil.).
Hilary, the deacon, fourth century.
Hippolytus, Bp. of Portus (?), fl. 220

(Hip.).
Ignatius, Bp. of Antioch, 107 (Ign.).
Isjnatius (Pseudo-), fourth century.
Irenaeus, Bp. of Lyons, fl. 178 ; chiefly
extant in an old Latin version (Iren.).
Isidore of Pelusium, 412 (Isid.).
Jacobus Nisibenus, fl. 335.
Jobius, sixth century.
Julian, heretic, fl. 425.
Julius Africanus, fl. 220.
Justin Martyr, 164 (Just.).
Justin Martyr (Pseudo-), fourth cen-
tury.
Justinian, Emperor, fl. 527-565.
Juvencus, fl. 320 (Juv.).
La^tantiiis, 306 (Lact.).
Leo the Great, fl. 440.
Leontius of Byzantium, fl. 348.
Liberatus of Carthage, fl. 533.
Lucifer, Bp. of Cagliari, 367 (Luc).
^ Macarlus Magnes, third or fourth cen-
tiyy.

yn

Macarius Magnus, fourth century.
Manes, fl. 278. See Archelaus.
Marcion the heretic, 139 (Melon.),

cited by Epiphanius (Mcion-e) and

by Tertullian (Mcion-t).
Maxentius, sixth century.
Maximus the Confessor, 662 (Max.

Conf).
Maximus Taurinensis, 466 (Max.

Meroator, Marius; fl. 218. ' ^

Methodius, 311 (Meth.).

Modestus, patriarch of Jerus. seventh

century.
Nestorias of C. P., fifth century.
Nicephorus, fl. 787.
Nicetas of Aquileia, fifth century.
Nicetas of Byzantium, 1120.
Nilus, monk, fl. 430.
Nonnus, fl. 400 (Nonn.).
Novatianus, fl. 251 (Novat.).
Oecumenius, Bp. of Tricca, tenth cen-
tury ? (Oecu.)
Opiaius, fl. 371.
Origen, b. 186, d. 253 (Or.).
Pacianus, Bp. of Barcelona, fl. 370.
Pamphilus the Martyr, 308 (Pamph.).
Papias, fl. 160.
Pasc/saste, the deacon ?
Paulus, Bp. of Emesa, fl. 431.
Paulus, patriarch of Constantinople,

fl. 648.
Peter, Bp. of Alexandria, 311 (Petr.).
Petrus Chrysologus, Archbp. of Ravenna, •
fl. 440.

Petrus, Deacon, fl. sixth century.

Petrus Sieulus, fl. 790.

Philo of Carpasus, fourth century.

Phoebadius, Bp. of Agen, fl. 358.

Photius, Bp. of Constantinople, 891
(Phot.).

Polycarp, Bp. of Smyrna, 166 (Polyc).

Porphyrins, fl. 290.

Primasius, Bp. of Admmetum, fl. 550
(Prim.). fii^ ,u/IjX^, •+■<-■

Prosper of Aquitania, fl. 431.

Prudmiius, 406 (Prud.).

Euflmts of Aquileia, 397 (Ruf ).

Severianus, a Syrian Bp., 409 (Sevrn.).

Severus of Antioch, fl. 510.

Socrates j Church I fl. 440 (Soc).

Sozomen i Historians ( 450 (Soz.).

Suidaa the lexicographer, 980 ? (Suid.).

^74

PATRISTIC CITATIONS.

Symeon, fl. 1000.
Symmachus, fourth century.
Tatian of Antioch, 172 (Tat.).
Tatian (Pseudo-), third century.
TeHulUan of Africa, fl. 200 (Tert.) \
Theodore, Bp. of Mopsuestia,

(Thdor. Mops.).
Theodoret, Bp. of Cyrus or of Cyrrhus

in Coinmagene, 458 (Thdrt.).
Theodorus of Heracleia, il. 336.
Theodorus, Lector, fl. 525.
Theodorus Studita, fl. 794.
Theodotus of Ancyra, fl. 431.
Theophilus of Alexandria, fl. 388.
Theophilus, Bp. of Antioch, 182 (Thph.

Ant.).

Theophylact, Archbp. of Bulgaria, fl.

1077 (Theophyl.).
Tichonius the Donatist, fl. 390 (Tich.).
Timotheus of Antioch, fifth century.
\ Timotheus of Jerusalem, sixth century.
428 ' Titus, Bp. of Bostra, fl. 370 (Tit. Best.).
^Victor of Antioch, 430 (Vict. Ant.) =>.
^Victor, Bp. of Tunis, 565 (Vict. Tun.)
Viciorinus, Bp. of Pettau, 360 (Victorin.),
Victorinus of Borne, fl. 361.
Vigilius of Thapsus, 484 (Vigil.).
Vincentius Lirinensis, fl. 484.
Zacharias, patriarch of Jerusalem, fl,

614.
Zacharias, Scholasticus, fl. 536.
Zeno, Bp. of Verona, fl. 463.

Ubri de xlii. mansionibus (auct.

Baans.), fourth century.
J,iictor Ubri de Promissionibiis dimid. tem-

poris (Prom.), third century.
jMdor Ubri de Rebaptismate (Rebapt.),

fourth century.
AuctorUbri de singidaritate ckricorwm (auct.

sing, cler.), fourth century.
Aw^tor Ubri de Vocatione gentium (Vocat.),

i^ourth century.
Acta Apostolica (Syriac), fourth century.
Acta Philippi, fourth centui-y.
Acta Pilati, third or fourth century.
Anaphora Pilati, fifth century.

V»

Besides the writers, the following anonymous works contain
quotations from the New Testament : —

Apocalypse of Peter, 170 (?)
Apocryphal Gospels, second century, &e.
Apostolic Canons, third to fifth century.
Apostolic Constitutions, third and

fourth centuries.
Chronicon Paschale, 628.
Concilia, Labb& or Mansi.
Cramer's Catena.
Dialogus, fourth or fifth century.
Eastern bishops at Ephesus, 431.
Gospel of Peter, about 165.
Opus Imperfedum, fifth century.
Qnaestiones ex utrogue Testamento, fourth

century ". , // . /f j,

^^cU^i^, ^'"^'z /«*^«-* i<'4i^.

* This important witness for the Old Latin version must now be used with
H. Roensch's ' Das Neue Testament Tertullian's,' Leipzig, 1871, wherein all his
citations from the N. T. are arranged and critically examined.

^ See Dean Burgon's Appendix (D) to his ' Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark,'
pp. 269-287, which well deserves the praise accorded to it by a not very friendly
critic. The Dean discusses at length the genius and character of Victor of
Antioeh's Commentary on St. Mark, and enumerates the manuscripts which
contain it.

' It should be stated that some of the dates in the two tables just given are
doubtful, authorities differing.

CHAPTER VII.

EAELY PRINTED EDITIONS.

TT would be quite foreign to our present design, to attempt
- to notice all the editions of the New Testament in Greek
which have appeared in the course of the last three centuries and
a half, nor would a large volume suffice for such a labour. We
will limit our attention, therefore, to those early editions which
have contributed to form our commonly received text, and to
such others of more recent date as not only exhibit a revised
text, but contain an accession of fresh critical materials fot its
more complete emendation ^.

Since the Latin or ' Mazarin ' Bible, printed between 1452 and
1456, was the first production of the new-born printing-press
(see above, p. 61), and the Jews had published the Hebrew Bible
in 1488, we must impute it to the general ignorance of Greek
among divines in Western Europej that although the two songs,
Magnificat and Senedictns (Luke i), were annexed to a Greek
Psalter which appeared first atMilahin 1481, without a printer's

^ Since the first edition of this book was issued, Ed. Eeuss has puhlished
' Bibliotheca Novi Testamenti Graeci, cuius editiones ab initio typographiae ad
nostram aetatem impressas quotquot reperiri potuerunt coUegit digessit illus-
travit E. K. Argentoratensis ' (Brunsvigae, 1872), to which the reader is referred
for editions which our purpose does not lead us to notice. Some of his state-
ments regarding the text of early editions we have repeated in the notes of the
present chapter. His enumeration is not grounded on a complete collation of
any book, but from the study of a thousand passages (p. 24) selected for his
purpose. Hence his numerical results are perpetually less than our own, or even
than Mill's. Professor Isaac H. Hall in SchaiFs ' Companion to the Greek Testa-
ment and the English Version,' D. I. Macmillan, 1883, has improved upon Eeuss,
and given a list of editions which as to America is, I believe, exhaustive (see also
his 'American Greek Testaments — a Critical Bibliography of the Greek New
Testament as published in America ' — Philadelphia, Pickwick and Company,
1883), and is very full as regards English and other editions. I should like to
have availed myself of the Professor's kind permission to copy that list, but it
would have been going out of the way to do so, since these two chapters are
simply upon the Early Printed and the OrUical Editions of the Text. — Ed.

176 EARLY PRINTED EDITIONS.

name ; next at Venice in 1486, being edited by a Greek ; again

at Venice from the press of Aldus in 1496 or 1497 : and although

the first six chapters of St. John's Gospel were published at

, ti.fijjM Venice bjij, Aldus Manutius in 1504, and John vi. 1 — 14 at

..i-Xi«*jTiibingen'm 1514, yet the first printed edition of the whole

' in N. T. the original is that contained in —

1. The Complutensian Polyglott ^ (6 vols., folio), the
munificent design of Francis Ximenes de Cisneros [1437-
1517], Cardinal Archbishop of Toledo, and Kegent of Castile
(1506-1517). This truly eminent person, six years of whose
humble youth were spent in a dungeon through the caprice of
one of liis predecessors in the Primacy of Spain, experienced
what we have seen so conspicuously illustrated in other instances,
that long imprisonment ripens the intellect which it fails to
extinguish. Entering the Franciscan order in 1482, he carried
the ascetic habit of his profession to the throne of Toledo and
the palace of his sovereign. Becoming in 1492 Confessor to
Queen Isabella the Catholic, and Primate three years later, he
devoted to pure charity or to public purposes the enormous
revenues of his see ; founding the University at Alcala de
Henares in New Castile, where he had gone to school, and
defraying the cost of an expedition which as Regent he led to
Oran against the Moors. In 1502 he conceived the plan of the
first Polyglott Bible, to celebrate the birth of him who afterwards
became the Emperor Charles V, and gathered in his University
of Alcala [Gomplutum) as many manuscripts as he could procure,
with men he deemed equal to the task, of whom James Lopez de
Stunica (subsequently known for his controversy with Erasmus)
was the principal: others being M. Antonio of Lebrixa, De-
metrius Ducas of Crete, and Ferdinand of Valladolid (Pintianus).
The whole outlay of Cardinal Ximenes on the Polyglott is
stated to have exceeded 50,000 ducats or about £23,000, a vast
sum in those days : — but his yearly income as Primate was
four times as great. The first volume printed, Tom. v, con-
tains the New Testament in two parallel columns, Greek and
Latin, the latter being that modification of the Vulgate then
current : the colophon on the last page of the Apocalypse states

' ' Novum Testameutum Grece et Latine in academia oomplutensi noviter
impressum,' Tom. v.

COMPLUTENSIAN. 177

that it was completed January 10, 1514, the printer being
Arnald William de Brocario. Tom. vi, comprising a Lexicon,
indices, &c., bears date March 17, 1515 ; Tom. i-iv of the Old
Testament and Apocrypha, 1517 (Tom. iv dated July 10), on
November 8 of which year the Cardinal died, full of honours and
good deeds. This event must have retarded the publication of
the whole, since Pope Leo's licence was not granted until March
23, 1520, and Erasmus did not see the book before 1523. As
not more than six hundred copies were printed, this Polyglott
must from the first have been scarce and dear, and is not always
met with in Public Libraries.

The Apocryphal books, like the N. T., are of course given
only in two languages ; in the Old Testament the Latin Vul-
gate holds the chief place in the middle, between the Hebrew
and the Septuagint Greek ^, The Greek type in the other
volumes is of the common character, with the usual breathings
and accents ; in the fifth, or New Testament volume, it is
quite different, being modelled after. the fashion of manuscripts
of about the thirteenth century, very bold and elegant (see
Plate X, No. 36), without breathings, and accentuated accord-
ing to a system defended and explained in a bilingual preface
•37/30S Toiis iVTev^ojxivovs, but never heard of before or since:
monosyllables have no accent, while in other words the tone sylla^
ble receives the acute, the grave and circumflex being discarded.
The Latin is in a noble church-character, references are made
from the one text to the other by means of small letters, and
where in either column there is a void space, in consequence of
words omitted or otherwise, it is fiUed up by such curves as
are seen in the bottom line of our specimen. The foreign,
matter in this volume consists of the short Preface in Latin
and Greek, Eusebius Carpiano (but without the canons),
Jerome's letter to Damasus, with the ordinary Latin Prologues

' Quite enough has been made of that piece of grim Spanish humour, ' Me-
diam autem inter has latinam beati Hieronymi trauslatiouem velut inter Syna-
gogam et Orientalem Eeclesiam posuimus : tanquam duos hino et iude latrones,
medium autem Jesum, hoe est Komanam sive latinam Eeclesiam eolloeantes'
(Prol. Tom. i). The editors plainly meant no disparagement to the original
Scriptures, as such ; but they had persuaded themselves that Hebrew codices
had been corrupted by the Jew, the Septuagint by the schismatical Greek, and
so clung to the Ijatin as the only form (even before the CouncU of Trent) in
which the Bible was known or studied in Western Europe.

VOL. II. N

178 EARLY PRINTED EDITIONS.

and Arguments before each book. St. Paul's Epistles precede
the Acts, as in Codd. i<, 61, 69, 90, &c. and before them stand
the aT!ohr}fj.la -navkov, Euthalii -nepl xpo^atv, the ordinary inio-
6i(Teis to all the twenty-one Epistles (grouped together), with
Theodoret's prologues subjoined to thirteen of the virodia-eLs.
By the side of the Latin text are numerous parallel passages,
and there are also five marginal notes (on Matt. vi. 13 ;
I Cor. xiii. 3 ; xv. 31 ; 51 ; i John v. 7, 8). The only divisions
are the common Latin chapters, subdivided by the letters
A, B, C, D, &c. Copies of laudatory verses ^, an interpretation
of Proper Names, and a Greek Lexicon of the N. T., close the
volume.

It has long been debated among critics, what manuscripts
were used by the Complutensian editors, especially in the N. T.
Ximenes is reported to have spent 4,000 ducats in the purchase
of such manuscripts ; in the Preface to the N. T. we are assured
that ' non quevis exemplaria impressioni huic archetypa fuisse :
sed antiquissima emendatissimaque : ac tante preterea vetustatis,
ut fidem eis abrogare nefas videatur : Que sanctissimus in
Christo pater et dominus noster Leo decimus pontifex maximps,
huic instituto favere cupiens ex apostolica bibliotheca educta
misit. . . .' Yet these last expressions can hardly refer to the
N. T., inasmuch as Leo X was not elected Pope till March 11,
1513, and the N. T. was completed Jan. 10 of the very next
year^. Add to this that Vercellone, whose services to sacred
literature have been spoken of above, brought to light the
fact that only two manuscripts are recorded as having been
sent to the Cardinal from the Vatican in the first year of Leo,
and neither of them (Vat. 330, 346) contained any paxt of

' Of these, two copies are in Greek, three in Latin Elegiacs. I subjoin those
of the native Greek editor, Demetrius Ducas, as a rather favourable specimen
of verse composition in that age : the fantastic mode of accentuation described
above was clearly not his work.

'Eiitpa^eis oaiat dper^^TE /3/)otoiis h oKv/iTTOv,

kaiiaitApaiv XVP"" ""i Piov oTSfv ayeir,
dpx^fpiv^ ^i-l'.ivr]^ Bfios iriKii. ipya ycip airoO

T}be PiPKos. &y7jTots d^ia S&pa rdde.

^ Tregelles (Account of the Printed Text, p. 7, note) states that he was elected
Feb. 28, crowned March 11 : Sir Harris Nicolas (' Chronology of History,' p. 194)
that he was elected March 11, without naming the date of his coronation as
usual, but mentioning that ' Leo X, in his letters, dated the commencement of
his pontificate before his coronation.'

COMPLUTENSIAN. 1 79

the N. T.^ The only one of the Complutensian codices specified
by Stunica, the Cod. Ehodiensis (Act. 52), has entirely dis-
appeared, and from a Catalogue of the thirty volumes of Biblical
manuscripts once in the library at Alcalel, but now at Madrid,
communicated in 1846 by Don Jos^ Gutierrez, the Librarian,
we find that they consist exclusively of Latin and Hebrew
books, with the exception of two which contain portions of the
Septuagint in Greek ^. Thus we seem cut off from all hope
of obtaining direct information as to the age, character, and
present locality of the materials employed for the Greek text of
this edition.

It is obvious, however, that in the course of twelve years
(1502-14), Ximenes may have obtained transcripts of codices
he did not himself possess, and since some of the more remark-
able readings of the Complutensian are found in but one or
two manuscripts (e.g. Luke i. 64 in Codd. 140, 251 ; ii. 22 in
Cod. 76), such copies should of course be narrowly watched.
We have pointed out above the resemblance that Siedel's
codex (Act. 42, Paul. 48, Apoc. 13) bears to this edition : so
too Cod. 4 of the Gospels. Mill first noticed its affinity to
Laud. 2 or Evan. 51, Act. 32, Paul. 38 (Evan. 51), and though
this is somewhat remote in the Gospels, throughout the Acts
and Epistles it is close and indubitable^. We see, therefore,

^ The following is the document (a curiosity in its way') as cited by Vercel-
lone : ' Anno primo Leonis PP. X. Eeverendiss. Dom. Franciscus Card. Tole-
tanus de mandate SS. D. N. Papae habuit ex bibliotheea a Dom. Phaedro
Bibliotheoario duo volumina graeca : unum in quo continentur libri infraseripti ;
videlicet Proverbia Salomonis, Ecclesiastes, Cant. Cant., Job, Sapientia, Eccle-
siasticus, Esdras, Tobias, Judith [this is Vat. 346, or 248 of Parsons]. Sunt in
eo folia quingenta et duodecim ex papyro in nigro." Puit extractum ex blanche
primo bibliothecae graecae communis. Mandatum Pontificis super conoessione
dictorum librorum registratum fuit in Camera Apostolica per D. Pranciscum De
Attavantes Notarium, uM etiam annotata est obligatio. Promisit restituere
intra annum sub poena ducentorum ducatorum.' — 'Kestituit die 9 Julii,
MDXVIII. Ita est. Pr. Zenobius Bibliothecai-ius.'

* The Catalogue is copied at length by Tregelles (Account of the Printed
Text, pp. 15-18). It is scarcely worth while to repeat the silly story taken up
by Moldenhawei', whose admiration of las cosas de Espafia was not extravagantly
high, that the AlcalS. manuscripts had been sold to make sky-rockets about 1749 ;
to which statement Sir John Bowring pleasantly adds in 1819, 'To celebrate
the arrival of some worthless grandee.' Gutierrez's recent list comprehends all
the codices named in the University Catalogue made in 1745 ; and we may hope
that even in Spain all grandees are not necessarily worthless.

' Thus in St. Mark the Complutensian varies from Laud. 2 in fifty-one places,
and nowhere agrees with it except in company with a m4ss of other copies. . In

N 3

l8o EARLY PRINTED EDITIONS.

no cause for believing that either Cod. B, or any manuscript
much resembling it in character, or any other document of high
antiquity or first-rate importance, was employed by the editors
of this Polyglott. The text it exhibits does not widely differ
from that of most codices written from the tenth century down-
wai'ds.

That it was corrupted from the parallel Latin version was
contended by "Wetstein and others on very insufficient grounds.
Even the Latinism /3eeA.Cei3ov^ Matt. x. 25, seems a mere inad-
vertence, and is, corrected immediatelj'- afterwards (xii. 24, 27),
as well as in the four other places wherein the word is used. We
need not deny that i John v. 7, 8 was interpolated, and probably
translated from the Vulgate ; and a few other cases have a sus-
picious look (Rom. xvi. 5 ; a Cor. v. 10 ; vi. 15 ; and especially
Gal. iii. 19) ; the articles too are employed as if they were
unfamiliar to the editor (e. g. Acts xxi. 4 ; 8) : yet we must
emphatically deny that on the whole the Latin Vulgate had an
appreciable effect upon the Greek. This last point had been
demonstrated to the satisfaction of Michaelis and of Marsh by
Goeze ^, in whose short tract many readings of Cod. Laud. 2 are
also examined. In the more exact collation of the N. T., which
we have made with the common text (Elzevir 1624), and which
appeared in the first edition of the present work, out of 2,780
places in all, wherein the Complutensian edition differs from that
of Elzevir (viz. 1,046 in the Gospels, 578 in the Pauline Epistles,
542 in the Acts and Catholic Epistles, 614 in the Apocalypse), in
no less than 849 the Latin is at variance with the Greek ; in the
majority of the rest the difference cannot be expressed in another
language. Since the Complutensian N. T, could only have been
published from manuscripts, it deserves more minute examination
than it has received from Mill or Wetstein ; and it were much to

the Acts on the contrary they agree 139 times, and differ but forty-one, some of
their loci singvlares being quite decisive : e.g. x. 17 ; 21 ; xii. 12 ; xvii. 31 ; xx. 38 ;
xxiv. 16 ; I Pet. iii. 12 ; 14 ; a Pet. i. 11. In most of these places Seidel's Codex, in
some of them Act. 69, and in nearly all Cod. Havn. 1 (Evan. 234, Act. 57, Paul.
72) are with Laud. 2. On testing this last at the Bodleian in some forty places,
I found Mill's representation fairly accurate. As might have been expected, his
Oxford manuscripts vyere collated much the best.

' Goeze's ' Defence of the Complutensian Bible,' 1766. He published a ' Con-
tinuation ' in 1769. See also Franc. Delitzsch's ' Studies on the Complutensian
Polyglott ' (Bagster, 1872), derived from his Academical Exercise as Dean of the
Theological Faculty at Leipzig, 1871-2.

COMPLUTENSIAN. l8l

be desired that minute collations could be made of several other
early editions, especially the whole five of Erasmus^

Since this Polyglott has been said to be very inaccurately printed, it
is necessary to state that we have noted just fifty pure errors of the
press ; in one place, moreover (Heb. vii. 3), part of the ninth EuthaUan

Ke<j)aKatov {ev a on Km tou a^paa/x npocTi/ilidrij has crept into the text.

All the usual peculiarities observable in later manuscripts are here,
e.g. 224 itacisms (chiefly a for o, i) for ei, « for t, ti for rj, oi for ei, and
vice versa) ; thirty-two instances of v eipeXxva-TiKov, or the superabundant
«', before a consonant ; fifteen cases of the hiatus for the lack of v before
a vowel ; ovtws is sometimes found before a consonant, but ovtco sixty-
eight times ; ovk and ovx, are interchanged twelve times. The following
peculiarities, found in many manuscripts, and here retained, may show
that the grammatical forms of the Greek were not yet settled among

scholars ; napriyyeKev Mark vi. 8 ; StayyeXe Luke ix. 60 ; KorayyeKeiv
Acts iv. 2; diayyi\av Acts xxi. 26 ; KarayyiXav I Cor. ii. 1 ; vapayyeXm

I Cor. vii. 10; ai/ayysXKcov 2 Cor. vii. 7; TrapayyeKop-iv 2 Thess. iii. 4;
irapayyfKe 1 Tim. iv. 11; V. 7 ; vi. 1 7. The augment is omitted nine
times (Matt. xi. 17 ; Acts vii. 42; xxvi. 32; Eom. i. 2; Gal. ii. 13;
iTim. vi. 10; z Tim. i. 16; Apoc. iv. 8; xii. 17); the redupUcation
twice (John xi. 52 ; i Cor. xi. 5) ; /ieXXm and pA\a are confounded,
Mark iv. 38; Acts xviii. 17; Apoc. iii. 2; xii. 4. Other anomalous
forms (some of them would be called Alexandrian) are wap.7r6kov Mark

viii. 1; vrjpeav Eom. xvi.. 15; e^mpeire I Cor. V. 13; anoKTevei 2 Cor.

iii. 6, passim; anxovp^v Gal. v. 25; e'ma Heb. iii. 10; evpapevos ibid.
ix. 12; ai7f(T)(€(T6ai I Pet. ii. 11; (caroXfiTrdi'Ter 2 Pet. ii. 15; irepi^aXKevrai
Apoc. iii. 5 ; fiEiyi/wTos ibid, xxii. 8. The stops are placed carelessly
in the Greek, being (.), (,), rarely (•), never (;). In the Latin the
stops are pretty regular, but the abbreviations very numerous, even such
purely arbitrary forms as xps for Christus. In the Greek o- often stands at
the end of a word for s, X and often v or ti are set at the beginning of
syllables : there are no instances of i ascript or subscript, and no capital
letters except at the beginning of a chapter, when they are often flourished.
The following forms are also derived from the general practice of manu-
scripts, and occur perpetually : a-n-dpTi, anapxrts, 8av (for 6' &v), eipfj, e^avrris,
CTTLToavTO, €<p6(roVj eaxroTOVj KaiToiye, Kadrj^iepav, Karihtav, Kafovap, peOrjp^Vj
pJvToi, ovpr), TOvrecTTL ; and for the most part SiairavTos, Star/, SiaTouTO, eiVtfj

ovKCTi. Sometimes the preposition and its case make but a single word,
as jrapa^va-iv, and once we find evirotria-ai., Vulg. benefacere (Mark xiv. 7).

The Complutensian text has been followed in the main by
only a few later editions, chiefly by Chr. Plantin's Antwerp
Polyglott (1569-72) K

' Eeuss says boldly that the Complutensian text 'purus et authentieus a
veteribua nunquam repetitus est' (p. 25), and gives a list of forty-four places in
which the Complutensian and Plantin editions are at variance (pp. 16, 17). He
subjoins a list of 185 cases in which the two are in unison against Erasmus and
Stephen jointly (pp. 18-21), so that the influence of the former over the latter
cannot be disputed.

l82 EARLY PRINTED EDITIONS.

2. Eeasmus' New Testament was by six years the earlier
published, though it was printed two years later than the
Complutensian. Its editor, both in character and fortunes,
presents a striking contrast with Ximenes ; yet what he lacked
of the Castilian's firmness he more than atoned for by his true
love of learning, and the cheerfulness of spirit that struggled
patiently, if not boldly, with adversity. Desiderius Erasmus
(kpaa-fjiios, i.e. Gerald) was born at Rotterdam in 1465, or, perhaps,
a year or two later, the illegitimate son of reputable and (but for
that sin] of virtuous parents. Soon left an orphan, he was forced
to take reluctantly the minor orders, and entered the priesthood
in 1492. Thenceforward his was the hard life of a solitary and
Wandering man of letters, earning a precarious subsistence from
booksellers or pupils^, now learning Greek at Oxford (but
avTobibaKTos)^, now teaching it at Cambridge (1510) ; losing by
his reckless wit the friends his vast erudition had won ; restless
and unfrugal, perhaps, yet always labouring faithfully and with
diligence. He was in England when John Froben, a celebrated
publisher at Basle, moved by the report of the forthcoming
Spanish Bible and eager to forestall it, made application to
Erasmus, through a common friend, to undertake immediately
an edition of the N. T. : ' se daturum poUicetur, quantum alius
quisquam,' is the argument employed. This proposal was sent
on April 17, 1515, years before which time Erasmus had prepared
numerous annotations to illustrate a x-evised Latin version he had
long projected. On September 11 it was yet unsettled whether
this improved version should stand by the Greek in a parallel
column (the plan actually adopted), or be printed separately:

' At forty he obtained the countenance of that good and bountiful rather
than great prelate, William Wareham, Archbishop of Canterbury (1502-32),
who, prosperous in life, was so singularly 'felix opporfcunitate mortis.' It
gladdens and makes sad at once an English heart to read what Erasmus writes
about him ten years later : ' Cujusmodi Maecenas, si mihi primis illis oontigisset
anuis, fortassis aliqujd in bonis Uteris potuissem. Nunc natus saeculo parum
felici, cum passim impunfe regnaret barbaries, praesertim apud nostrates, apud
quos turn crimen etiam erat quicquam bonarum literarum attigisse, tantum
aberat ut honos aleret hominum studia in ea regione, quae Baecho Cererique
dicata sunt verius quam musis ' (N. T. 1516, Annot. i Thess. ii. p. 554).

" Bishop Middleton may have lost sight of this pregnant fact when he wrote
of Erasmus, ' an acquaintance with Greek criticism was certainly not among his
best acquirements, as his Greek Testament plainly proves : indeed he seems not
to have had a very happy talent for languages ' (Doctrine of the Greek Article,
p. 395, 3rd edition).

ERASMUS. 183

yet the colophon at the end of Erasmus' first edition, a large
folio of 1,027 pages in all, is dated February, 1516 ; the end of
the Annotations, March 1, 1516 ; Erasmus' dedication to Leo X,
Feb. 1, 1516 ; and Froben's Preface, full of joyful hope and honest
pride in the friendship of the first of living authors, Feb. 24, 1516.
Well might Erasmus, who had besides other literary engagements
to occupy his time, declare subsequently that the volume ' prae-
cipitatum fuit verius quam editum ; ' yet both on the title-page,
and in his dedication to the Pope, he allows himself to employ
widely difierent language^. When we read the assurance he
addressed to Leo, ' Novum ut vocant testameutum universum ad
Graecae originis fidem recognovimus, idque non temere neque
levi opera, sed adhibitis in consilium compluribus utriusque
linguae codicibus, nee iis sane quibuslibet, sed vetustissimis
simul et emendatissimis,' it is almost painful to be obliged to
remember that a portion of ten months at the utmost could have
been devoted to his task by Erasmus ; while the only manu-
scripts he can be imagined to have constantly used are Codd.
Evan. 2, Act. Paul. 2 and Paul. 7, with occasional reference to
Evan. Act. Paul. 1 and Act. Paul. 4 (all still at Basle) for the
remainder of the New Testament, to which add Apoc. 1,
now happily recovered, alone for the Apocalypse. AU these,
excepting Evan. Act. Paul. 1, were neither ancient nor
particularly valuable, and of Cod. 1 he professed to make but
small account^. As Apoc. 1 was mutilated in the last six

' The title-page is long and rather boastful. ' Novum Instrumentum omne,
diligenter ab Erasmo Eoterodamo reeognitum et emendatum, non solum ad
graecam Toritatem, varum etiam ad multorum utriusque linguae codicum,
eorumque veterum simul et emendatorum fidem, postremo ad probatissimorum
autorum eitationem, emendationem, et interpretationem, praecipue, Origenis,
Chrysostomi, Cyi-illi, Vulgarii, Hieronymi, Cypriani, Ambrosii, Hilarii, Augus-
tini, una eu:m Annotationibus, quae lectorem doceant, quid qua ratione mutatum
sit. Quisquis igitur amas veram theologiam, lege, cognosce, ae deinde judica.
Neque statim. offendere, si quid mutatum offenderis, aed expende, num in melius
mutatum sit. Apud inclytam Germaniae Basilaeam.' The Vulgarius of Eras-
mus' first edition is no less a person thanTheophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria,
as appears plainly from his Annotations, p. 319, 'nee in uUis graecorum
exemplaribus addita reperi [l« aoS, Luke i. 35], ne apud Vulgarium quidem,
neo in autiquis codicibus Latinis.' He had found out his portentous blimder
by 1528, when, in his 'Eesponsio ad Object, xvi. Hispanorum,' he gives that
commentator his right name.

^ Yet he could have follovired none other than Cod. 1 in Matt. xxii. 28 ;
xxui. 25 ; xxvii. 62 ; xxviii. 3, 4, 19, 20 ; Mark vii. 18, 19, 26 ; x. 1 ; xii. 22 ;
XV. 46 ; Luke i. 16, 61 ; ii. 43 ; ix. 1, 15 ; xi. 49 ; John i. 28 ; x. 8 ; xiii. 20 ; in

184 EARLY PRINTED EDITIONS.

verses, Erasmus turned these into Greek from the Latin ;
and some portions of his self-made version, which are found
(however some editors may speak vaguely) in no one known
Greek manuscript whatever, still cleave to our received text ^.
Besides this scanty roll, however, he not rarely refers in
his Annotations to other manuscripts he had seen in the course
of his travels (e. g. on Heb. i. 3 ; Apoc. i. 4 ; viii. 13), yet too
indistinctly for his allusions to be of much use to critics. Some
such readings, as alleged by him, have not been found elsewhere
(e. g. Acts xxiv. 23 ; Rom. xii. 20), and may have been cited
loosely from distant recollection (comp. Col. iii. 3 ; Heb. iv. 13 ;
3 Pet. iii. 1 ; Apoc. ii. 18).

When Ximenes, in the last year of his life, ^vas shown Erasmus'
edition which had thus got the start of his own, and his editor,
Stunica, sought to depreciate it, the noble old man replied,
' would God that all the Lord's people were prophets ! produce
better, if thou canst ; condemn not the industry of another ^.'
His generous confidence in his own work was not misplaced. He
had many advantages over the poor scholar and the enterprising
printer of Basle, and had not let them pass unimproved. The

all wliich passages the latiu Vulgate is neutral or hostile. See also Hoskier,
Cod. Et. 604, App. F. p. 4.

' Such are op0piv6s, Apoc. xxii. ver. 16 ; i\$€ bis, fKBerai, \ait0avWa t6, ver. 17 ;
aviiiiaprvpovii.ai yap, eniTiSrj npbs toSto, — tS (ante ^i$\cw) ver. 18 ; a/paip^, $i0\ov,
d(paipriaci, PiffXov secund., Kal uU. — ra (ante Pi$\iai) ver. 19 ; fiP-Siv, vpuiiv, ver. 21.
Erasmus in his Annotations fairly confesses what he did : ' quanquam in calee
hujus libri, nonnulla verba reperi apud nostros, quae aberant in-Graeois exem-
plaribus, ea tamen ex latinis adjfecimus.' But since the text and commentary
in Cod. Reuchlini are so mixed up as to be undistinguishable in parts without
the aid of a second manuscript (Tregelles' ' Delitzsch's Handsohriftliche Funde,'
Part ii. pp. 2-7), it is no wonder that in other places Erasmus in his perplexity
was sometimes tempted to translate into his own Greek from the Latin Vulgate
such words or clauses as he judged to have been wrongly passed over by his
sole authority, e. g. eh. ii. 2, 17 ; iii. 5, 12, 15 ; vi. 11, 15 (see under Apoc. 1) ; vii.
17 ; xiii. 4, 5 ; xiv. 16 ; xxi. 16 ; xxii; 11, where the Greek words only of Eras-
mus are false ; while in ch. ii. 3 ; v. 14 {Ms) ; vi. 1, 3, 5; 7 ; xiii. 10 ; xiv. 5
(as partly in xxii. 14), he was misled by the recent copies of the Vulgate,
whereto alone he had access, to make additions which no Greek manuscript is
known to support. Bengel's acuteness had long before suspected that ch. v.
14 ; xxii. 11, and the form dKaBipTrjTos, ch. xvii. 4 (where Apoc. 1 has ret dxd-
Bapra) had their origin in no Greek copy, but in the Vulgate. Nor does Apoc. 1
lend any coixntenance to ch. xvii. 8, Ka'mtp iart, or to ver. 13, SiaSiSiiaovaiv.
For Erasmus' TTKTjpiiaovTai ch. vi. 11, Apoc. 1 has itKripiiawaiv, the Latin im/ple-
antur ; for his atppayi^aiiev, ch. vii. 3, we find a<ppayiaa>ixiv in Apoc. 1, but the
latter omits rfjs dpme\ov, ch. xiv. 18, and so does Erasmus on its authority.

' Tregelles, Account of the Printed Text, p. 19.

ERASMUS. 185

typographical errors of the Complutensian Greek have been
stated ; Erasmus' first edition is in that respect the most faulty
book I know. Oecolampadius, or John Hausschein of Basle
[1482—1531], afterwards of some note as a disputer with Luther
on the Sacramentarian controversy, had undertaken this
department for him,- and was glad enough to serve under such
a chief; but Froben's hot haste gate him little leisure to do
his part. No less than 501 itacisms are imported from the
manuscripts into his printed text, and the v efpeXKva-TLKov is per-
petually used with verbs, before a consonant beginning the next
word. We must, however, impute it to design that i subscript,
which is elsewhere placed pretty correctly, is here set under
7] in the plural of the subjunctive mood active, but not in the
singular (e. g. James ii. 8 eirt/SXe'x/fjjre, ei-nriTe bis, but ver. 2 daiXOri
bis). With regard to the text, the difference between the two
editions is very wide in the Apocalypse, the text of the Complu-
tensian being decidedly preferable ; elsewhere they resemble each
other more closely, and while we fully admit the error of Stunica
and his colleagues in translating from the Latin version into
Greek, i John v. 7, 8, it would appear that Erasmus has else-
where acted in the same manner, not merely in cases which for
the moment admitted no choice, but in places where no such
necessity existed : thus in Acts ix. 5, 6, the words from crK\r]p6v
to Ttpos avTov are interpolated from the Vulgate, partly by the
help of Acts xxvi \-

Erasmus died at Basle in 1536, having lived to publish four
editions besides that of 1516. The second has enlarged annota-
tions, and very truly bears on its title the statement,- 'multo
quam antehac diligentius ab Er. Rot. recognitum ; ' for a large
portion of the misprints, and not a few readings of the first
edition, are herein corrected, the latter chiefly on the authority
of a fresh eodex, Evan. Act. Paul. 3. The colophon to the
Apocalypse is dated 1518, Froben's Epistle to the reader, Feb.
5, 1519. In this edition t subscript is for the most part set
right; Carp., Bus. t, Ke(j). t., TirXob, Am.) Bus. are added

'■ It sometimes happens that a reading cited in the Annotations is at variance
■with that given in the text ; but Erasmus had been engaged in writing
the former for about ten years at intervals, and had no leisure to revise them
then. Thus John xvli. 2 Siiaei (after Cod. 1, but corrected to Siiar; in the
errata); i Thesa. ii. 8; iii. 1; i Tim. v. 21; Apoc. i. 2; ii. 18; xiv. 10, 18 ;
xxi. 6.

l86 EARLY PRINTED EDITIONS.

in the Gospels; Dorotheus' 'Lives of the Four Evangelists'
(see Act. 89) stood before St. Matthew in 1516 ; but now the
longer 'Lives' by Sophronius, with Theophylact's 'Prologues,'
are set before each Gospel. Ke^aAata (not the Euthalian)
are given in both editions in Rom, 1, a Corinth, only, but the
Latin chapters are represented in the margin throughout, with
the subdivisions A, B, C, D. Of these two editions put to-
gether 3,300 copies were printed. The third edition (1522) is
chiefly remarkable for its insertion of i John v. 7, 8 in the
Greek text^, under the circumstances described above, Vol. I.
p. 200, in consequence of Erasmus' controversy with Stunica and
H. Standish, Bp. of St. Asaph (d. 1534), and with a much weaker
antagonist, Edward Lee, afterwards Archbishop of York, who
objected to his omission of a passage which no Greek codex was
then known to contain. This edition again" was said to be
'tertio jam ac diligentius . . . recognitum,' and contains also
' Capita argumentorum contra morosos quosdam ac indoctos,'
which he subsequently found reason to enlarge. The fourth
edition (dated March, 1527) contains the text in three parallel
colums, the Greek, the Latin Vulgate, and Erasmus' recension of
it. He had seen the Complutensian Polyglott in 1522, shortly
after the publication of his third edition, and had now the good
sense to avail himself of its aid in the improvement of the text,
especially in the Apocalypse, wherein he amended from it at
least ninety readings. His last edition of 1535 once more dis-
carded the Latin Vulgate, and differs very little from the fourth
as regards the text ^.

A minute collation of all Erasmus' editions is a desideratum
jt we may one day come to see supplied. The present writer hopes

^ The first complete printed English N. T. (Tyndale 1526) followed Erasmus'
third edition rather than his second : cf. Eom. viii. 20, 21 as well aa i John
V. 7, 8.

' I never saw the Basle manuscripts, and probably Dean Alford had been
more fortunate, otherwise I do not think he has evidence for his statement that
' Erasmus tampered with the readings of the very few MSS. which he collated '
(N. T., vol. i. Proleg. p. 74, 4th edition). The truth is, that to save time and
trouble, he used them as copy for the press, as was intimated above, where
Burgon's evidence is quite to the point. For this purpose corrections would
of course be necessary (those made by Erasmus were all too few), and he might
fairly say, in the words cited by Wetstein (N. T., Prolog., p. 127), 'se codices
suos praecastigasse. Any wanton ' tampering ' with the text I am loth to
admit, unless for better reasons than I yet know of.

soon to publish a full comparison of his first and second editions
with the Complutensian text^, as also with that of Stephen 1550,
of Beza 1565, and of Elzevir 1624. All who have followed Mill
over any portion of the vast field he endeavoured to occupy, will
feel certain that his statements respecting their divergences are
much below the > truth: such as they are, we repeat them for
want of more accurate information. He estimates that Erasmus'
second edition contains 330 changes from the first for the better,
seventy for the worse (N. T., Proleg. § 1134) ; that the third
difi"ers from the second in 118 places {ibid. § 1138) ^ ; the fourth
from the third in 106 or 113 places, ninety being those from the
Apocalypse just spoken of {ibid. § 1141) ^ The fifth he alleges to
difi'er from the fourth only four times, so far as he noticed {ibid.
§ 1150): but we meet with as many variations in St. James'
Epistle alone *.

3. In 1518 appeared the Graeca Biblia at Venice, from the
celebrated press of Aldus : the work professes to be grounded on
a collation of many most ancient copies^. However true this
must be with regard to the Old Testament, which was now pub-
lished in Greek for the first time, Aldus follows the first edition
of Erasmus so closely in the New as to reproduce his very
errors of the press (Mill, N. T., Proleg. § 1132), even those
which Oecolampadius had corrected in the list of errata ;
though Aldus is stated to differ from Erasmus in about 200
places, for the better or worse®. If this edition was really

^ Keuss (p. 24) enumerates 347 passages wherein 'the first edition of Erasmus
differs from the Complutensian, forty-two of which were changed in his second
edition. In fifteen places the first edition agrees with the Complutensian
against the second (p. 30).

^ Besides the weighty insertion of i John v. 7, 8, Eeuss (p. 32) gives us only
seven changes in the third edition from the second : Mill's other cases, he says,
must be mere trifles.

^ Here again Beuss declares 'paucissimas novas habet' (p. 36), and names
only six.

* ' Non deserit quartam nisi duobus in loois : i Cor. xii. 2 ; Acts ix. 28 '
(Eeuss, p. 37). Keuss had evidently not seen the first edition of the present
work.

* Multis vetustissimis exemplaribus collatis, adhibita etiam quorundam
eruditissimorum hominum cura, Biblia (ut vulgo appellant) graeee cuucta
eleganter descripsi (Andreas Aesulanus Cardinali Aegidio). y}// /•

' This is Mill's calculation, but Wetstein followed him over the ground, C ^^ji^r C
adding (especially in the Apocalypse) not a few variations of Aldus which Mill
had overlooked, now and then correcting his predecessor's errors (e.g. a Cor.

y^t/r

l88 EARLY PRINTED EDITIONS.

revised by means of manuscripts (Cod. 131) rather than hy
mere conjecture, we know not what they were, or how far
intelligently employed.

Another edition out of the many which now began to swarm,
wherein the testimony of manuscripts is believed to have been
followed, is that of Simon Colinaeus, Paris, 1534, in which the
text is an eclectic mixture of the Complutensian and Erasmian \
Mill states (Proleg. § 1144) that in about 150 places Colinaeus
deserts them both, and that his variations are usually supported
by the evidence of known codices (Evan. 119, 120 at Paris, and
Steph. la, i. e. Act. 8, Paul. 10, have been suggested), though
a few still remain which may perhaps be deemed conjectural.
Wetstein (N. T., Proleg. vol. i. p. 142) thinks that for Bogard's
Paris edition of 1543 with various readings Evan. 120 or Steph.
lb' might have been used, but his own references hardly favour
that notion.

4. The editions of Eobert Stephen (Estienne), mainly by
reason of their exquisite beauty, have exercised a far wider
influence than these, and Stephen's third or folio edition of 1550
is by many regarded as the received or standard text. This
eminent and resolute man [1508-59], 'whose Biblical work taken
altogether had perhaps more influence than that of any other
single man in the sixteenth century ^,' early commenced his useful
career as a printer at Paris, and, having incurred the enmity
of the Doctors of the Sorbonne for his editions of the Latin
Vulgate, was yet protected and patronised by Francis I [d. 1547]
and his son Henry II. It was from the Eoyal Press that
his three principal editions of the Greek N. T. were issued, the

xi. 1 ; Col. ii. 23), not without mistakes of his own (e. g. Luke xi. 34 ; Eph. vi.
22). Since Wetsteiu's time no one seems to have gone carefully through the
Aldine N. T., except Delitzsch in order to illustrate the Codex Eeuchlini (1) in
the Apocalypse. Eeuss (p. 28) notes eleven places in which it agrees with the
Complutensian against Erasmus ; seven wherein it rejects both books.

^ The title-page runs ei/ Kev/ceTia raiv Trapi^aicuv, irapa aifiojvi t(o KoXivaioj Setcfjz-
Ppiov firjvos Sivrepa ipBivovTOs, et« airo rrj! Bfoyovias atpKS. This book has no
Preface, and the text does not contain i John v. 7, 8. It stands alone in
reading dyye\ia, i John i. 5. Eeuss (p. 46), who pi-aises Colinaeus highly, states
that he deserts Erasmus' third edition 113 times out of his own thousand, fifty-
three of them to side with the Complutensian, and subjoins a list of fifty-two
passages wherein he stands alone among early editors, for most of which he
may have had manuscript authority.

' Wordsworth, Old Latin Biblical Texts, I. xv.

R. STEPHEN. 189

fourth and last being publisHed in 1551 at Geneva, to which
town he finally withdrew the next year, and made public
profession of the Protestant opinions which had long been
gathering strength in his mind. The editions of 1546, 1549 are
small 12mo in size, most elegantly printed with type cast at the
expense of Francis : the opening words of the Preface common to
both, "0 Tnirificam Regis nostri optimi et praestantissimi
principis liberalitatem.,.'have given them the name by which
they are known among connoisseurs. Erasmus and his services
to sacred learning Stephen does not so much as name, nor indeed
did he as yet adopt him for a model : he speaks of " codices ipsa
vetustatis specie pene adorandos " which he had met with in the
King's Library, by which, he boldly adds, ' ita hunc nostrum
recensuimus, ut nullam omnino literam secus esse pateremur
quam plures, iique meliores libri, tanquam testes, comprobarent.'
The Complutensian, as he admits, assisted him greatly, and he
notes its close connexion with the readings of his manuscripts ^.
Mill assures us (Proleg. § 1320) that Stephen's first and second
editions difier but in sixty-seven places. My own collation of
the two books gives 139 cases of divergence in the text, twenty-
eight in punctuation. They differ joiatly from the third edition
334 times in the text, twenty-seven in punctuation. In the
Apocalypse the first and second editions are close to the text of
Erasmus, differing from each other but in eleven places, while
the third edition follows the Complutensian or other authorities
against the first in sixty-one places. In the folio or third edition
of 1550 the various readings of the codices, obscurely referred to
in the Preface to that of 1546, are entered in the margin. This
fine volume (bearing on its title-page, in honour of Henry II, the
inscription Baa-iXei t ayadSi, KparepiS t alxfJ-rjTfj) derives much
importance from its being the earliest ever published with critical
apparatus. In the Preface or Epistle to the Reader, written after
the example of the Complutensian editors both in Greek and
Latin, his authorities are declared to be sixteen ; viz. a', the
Spanish Polyglott ; /8', which we have already discussed {above,

' Keuss (pp. 50, 51, 54) mentions only nine places wherein Stephen's first
edition does not agree either with the Complutensian or Erasmus ; in the second
edition four (or rather three) more ; in the third nine, including the great
erratum, i Pet. iii. 11. He further alleges that in the Apocalypse whatever
improvements were introduced by Stephen came from the fourth edition of
Erasmus, not from the Complutensian.

igo EARLY PRINTED EDITIONS.

p. 124, noteS), y, 8', e', "J"', C',ri', i, le' taken from King Henry II's
Library ; the rest (i. e. 6', la, i/3', ty', ih', it') are those & avToi
TTavraxodev (rvvqdpoCcrafj,€v, or, as the Latin runs, ' quae undi-
que corrogare licuit : ' these, of course, were not necessarily his
own, one at least (ty', Act. 9, Paul. 11) we are sure was not.
Although Eobert Stephen professed to have collated the whole
sixteen for his two previous editions, and that too <aj olov re
jjv eiTLixeXia-TaTa, this part of his work is now known to be due
to his son Henry [1528-98], who in 1546 was only eighteen
years old (Wetsteiu, N. T., Proleg., vol. i. pp. 143-4). The degree
of accuracy attained in this collation may be estimated from the
single instance of the Complutensian, a book printed in very
clear type, widely .circulated, and highly valued by Stephen
himself. Deducting mere errata, itacisms, and such like, it differs
from his third edition in more than 2,300 places, of which
(including cases where w. or Tri.vres stands for all his copies) it is
cited correctly 554 times (viz. 164 in the Gospels, ninety-four in
St. Paul, seventy-six in the Acts and Catholic Epistles, 220 in
the Apocalypse), and falsely no less than fifty-six times, again
including errors from a too general use of TrdvTes '- I would not
say with some that these authorities stand in the margin more
for parade than use, yet the text is perpetually at variance with
the majority of them, and in 119 places with them all ^- If we
trust ourselves once more to the guidance of Mill (Proleg. § 1228),
the foho of 1550 departs from its smaller predecessors of 1546,
1549, in 284 readings*, chiefly to adopt the text of Erasmus' fifth

' Mill states that Stephen's citations of the Complutensian are 598, Marsh
578, of which forty-eight, or one in twelve, are false ; but we have tried to be
as exact as possible. Certainly some of Stephen's inaccuracies are rather slight,
viz. Acts ix. 6 ; xv. 29 ; xxv. 5 ; xxviii. 3 ; Eph. iv. 82 ; Col. iii. 20 ; Apoc. i.
12 ; ii. 1, 20, 24 ; iii. 2, 4, 7, 12 ; iv. 8 ; xv. 2 : 0' seems to be put for a' Matt.
X. 25.

' Viz. in the Gospels 81, Paul. 20, Act. Cath. 17, Apoc. 1 (ch. vii. 5) : but for
the Apocalypse the margin had only three authorities, a', U, ir" (ir' ending
ch. xvii. 8), whose united readings Stephen rejects no less than fifty-four times.
See, moreover, above, p. 1 4, note 3.

' Here, again, my own collation represents Stephen's first edition as differing
from his third in 797 places, of which 372 only are real various readings, the
rest relating to accents, or being mere errata. Of these 372 places, the third
edition agi'ees in fifty-six places with it. or irivT^s of its own margin, and in
fifty five with some of the authorities cited therein. Stephen no doubt knew of
manuscript authority for many of his other changes, though some may be mere
errata.

R. STEPHEN. 191

edition, though even now the Complutensian is occasionally
preferred (e.g. evXoy^Vas Matt. xxvi. 36), most often in the
Apocalypse, and that with very good reason. Of his other
fifteen authorities, la' (=Act. 8) and tT (=Apoc. 3) have never
been identified, but were among the six in private hands :
p' certainly is Cod. D or Bezae ; the learned have tried, and
on the whole successfully, to recognize the remainder, especially
those in the Royal (or Imperial, or National) Library at Paris.
In that great collection Le Long has satisfied us that y' is
probably Evan. 4 ; 6' is certainly Evan. 5 ; e' Evan. 6 ; <j-'
Evan. 7 ; r( Evan. L ; f he rightly believed to be Evan. 8
(above, p. 191, note) ; i appears to be Act. 7. Of those in the
possession of individuals in Stephen's time, Bp. Marsh (who in
his ' Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis,' 1795, was led to examine
this subject very carefully) has proved that ly is Act. 9;
Wetstein thought B' was Evan. 38 (which however see) ; Scholz
seems ,to approve of Wetstein's conjecture which Griesbach
doubted (N.T., Proleg., Sect. i. p. xxxviii), that t/3' is Evan. 9 :
Griesbach rightly considers tS' to be Evan. 120 ; te' was seen by
Le Long to be Act. 10 : these last four are now in the Eoyal
Library. It has proved the more difficult to settle them, as
Robert Stephen did not even print all the materials that Henry
had gathered ; many of whose various readings were published
subsequently by Beza^ from the collator's own manuscript,
which itself must have been very defective. With all its faults,
however, the edition of 1550 was a foundation on which others
might hereafter build, and was unquestionably of great use in
directing the attention of students to the authorities on which
alone the true text of Scripture is based. This standard edition
contains the following supplementary matter besides the Epistle
to the reader : Chrysostom's Horn. I in S. Matthaeum (then first

* Wetstein (N. T., Prol., vol. i. p. 36) instances the readings of Cod. D (indi-
cated as ' quidam codex ' by Beza in 1565) in Mark ix. 38 ; x. 50 ; Luke vii. 35.
We may add that Beza in 1665 cites the evidence of one Stephanie manuscript
for the omission of vimv, Matt, xxiii. 9 ; of two for xarfSlw^iv Mark i. 36 ; in
later editions of two also in Luke xx. 4, and Acts xxii. 25 ; of three for Ir^py
Matt. xxi. 30, two of which would be Cod. D and Evan. 9 (Steph. i|8'). In his
dedication to Queen Elizabeth in 1665, Beza speaks plainly of an ' exemplar
ex Stephani nostri bibliotheca cum viginti quinque plus minus manusoriptis
codicibus, et omnibus paenS impressis, ab Henrico Stephano ejus filio, et
paternae sedulitatis haerede, quam diligentissimfe collatum.'

.dp

192 EARLY PRINTED EDITIONS.

published) : Carp., Eus. t. : Uivai fiapTvpi&v of 0. T. passages cited
in the N.T. being (1) Hteral, (2) virtual : seventy-two Hexameter
lines, headed EpptKoj o Pco/Seproti Sre^ayou, <f>i\odeco tiavTi : prol.
by Theophylact following ' Lives ' by Sophronius and Dorotheus
of Tyre, with k€(J). t. before each Gospel : rtr\., Ke(^., Ann., Eus.
Before the Acts stand 'A:ro8rj/xta Ilavkov and Euthalius ■aepX
T&v x/'oz""!'. Ks^. t. Before the Epistles is a new title-page.
Chrysostom's prol. on the Pauline Epistles begins the new
volume. Each separate Epistle has prefixed prol. (chiefly by
Theodoret) and Keif), t. The Acts and Epistles have k€(J)., but
the Apocalypse no prol. or Keij)., except the ordinary Latin
chapters, which are given throughout the N.T., subdivided by
letters.

R. Stephen's smaller edition (16m.o), published in 1551 at
Geneva, though that name is not on the title-page, is said to con-
tain the Greek Text of 1550 almost unchanged ^, set between the
Vulgate and Erasmus' Latin versions. In this volume we first
find our present division of the N. T. into verses : ' triste lumen,'
as Eeuss calls it (p. 58), 'nee posthac extinguendum.'

5. Theodore de Beze [1519-1605], a native of Yezelai in the
Nivernois, after a licentious youth, resigned his ecclesiastical
preferments at the age of twenty-nine to retire with the wife of
his early choice to Geneva, that little city to which the genius
of one man has given so prominent a place in the history of the
sixteenth century. His noble birth and knowledge of the world,
aided by the impression produced at the Conference at Poissy
(1561) by his eloquence and learning, easily gained for Beza the
chief place among the French Reformed on the death of their
teacher Calvin in 1564. Of his services in connexion with the
two Codd. D we have already spoken : he himself put forth at
intervals, besides his own elegant Latin version published in
1556, ten editions of the N. T. (viz. four in folio in the years 1565,
1582, 1588, 1598, and six in octavo in 1565, 1567, 1580, 1591,
1604, and 1611), the Latin Vulgate, and Annotations ^. A better
A

' But here again we must qualify previous statements. Keuss (p. 58) cites
six instances wherein Stephen's third and fourth editions differ (Matt. xxi. 7 ;
xxiii. 13, 14 ; xxiv. 15 ; Luke xvii. 36 ; Col. i. 20 ; Apoo. iii. 12) : to which list
add Mark xiv. 21 ; xvi. 20 ; Luke i. 50 ; viii. 81 ; xii. 1 ; Acts xxvii. 13 ; 2 Cor.
x. 6 ; Heb. vii. 1.

^ Professor Isaac H. Hall, who has the advantage of Dr. Scrivener in actually

BEZA, ELZEVIR. I93

commentator perhaps than a critic, but most conspicuous as the
earnest leader of a religious party, Beza neither sought very
anxiously after fresh materials for correcting the text, nor made
any great use of what were ready at hand, namely, his own two
great codices, the papers of Henry Stephen, and Tremellius' Latin
version of the Peshitto. All his editions vary somewhat from
Stephen and from each other, yet there is no material difference
between any of them ^. He exhibits a tendency, not the less
blameworthy because his extreme theologic^^l views would tempt
him thereto, towards choosing that reading out of several which
might best suit his own preconceived opinions. Thus in Luke ii.
32 he adopts (and our Authorized English version condescends to
follow his judgement) tov Kadapicrixov avTrjs from the Complutensian,
for which he could have known of no manuscript authority
whatever : ejus of the Vulgate would most naturally be rendered
by avTov (see Campbell in loc). Wetstein calculates that Beza's
text differs from Stephen's in some fifty places (an estimate we
shall find below the mark), and that either in his translation or
his Annotations he departs from Stephen's Greek text in 150
passages (Wetst. N. T., Proleg., Tom. ii. p. 7).

6. The brothers Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir set up
a printing-press at Leyden, which maintained its reputation for

himself posseasing all the ten editions of Beza, as he states in MS. in a copy of

his 'American Greek Testaments' kindly given to me, says, p. 60, note, that in

the edition of 1566 the Greek does not occur, and that Beza's first Greek text

was published in 1565. Beza must have reckoned his Latin amongst his editions

•when he spoke of his folio of 1565 as his second edition, and must generally have / r If- ,/

dated from 1556 as the beginning of his labours. The dates of the ten editions ^_<l^.^/ t'o

given above are extracted from Erofessor Hall's list in Schaff's ' Companion to ff

the Bible,' pp. 500-502.

• Eeuss says fairly enough (p. 85) that Beza was the true author of what is
called the received text, from which the Elzevir of 1624 rarely departs. He
used as his basis the fourth edition of Stephen, from which he departed in
1565, so far as Eeuss has found, only twenty-five times, nine times to side
with the Complutensian, four times with Erasmus, thrice with the two united ;
the other nine readings are new, whereof two (Acts xvii. 25 ; James v. 12) had
been adopted by Colinaeus. The second edition of 1582 vrithdraws one of the
peculiar readings of its predecessor, but adds fourteen more. The third edition
(1588), so far as Eeuss knows, departs from the second but five times, and
the fourth (1598) from the third only twice, Matt. vi. 1 {Sixatoaiirrjv) ; Heb.
X. 17 (add. Ti5« «t/>i?«e), neither of which I can verify. These results, on
Eeuss's system of investigation, can be only approximately true (see p. 164,
note), and do not include some changes silently introduced into Beza's Latin
version, as suggested in his Annotations.
VOL. II.

194 EARLY PRINTED EDITIONS.

elegance and correctness throughout the greater part of the
seventeenth century. One of their minute editions, so much
prized by bibliomanists, was a Greek Testament, 24mo, 1624,
alleging on the title-page (there is no Preface whatever) to be ex
Regiis aliisque optimis editionibus cwm curd eocpressum: by
Regiis, we presume, Stephen's editions are meant, and especially
that of 1550. The supposed accuracy (for which its good name
is not quite deserved) and the great neatness of this little book
procured for it much popularity. When the edition was ex-
hausted, a second appeared in 1633, having the verses broken up
into separate sentences, instead of their numbers being indicated
in the margin, as in 1624. In the Preface it seems to allude to
Beza's N. T., without directly naming him : ' Ex regiis ac ceteris
editionibus, quae maxime ac prae ceteris nunc omnibus proban-
tur.' To this edition is prefixed, as in 1634, a table of quotations
(irlva^ ixaprvpi&v) from the Old Testament, to which are now
added tables of the Ke<j)6Xaia of the Gospels, Ix^eo-ts Ke<f)a\ai(ov of
the Acts and all thfe Epistles. Of the person entrusted with its
superintendence we know nothing ; nearly all his readings are
found either in Stephen's or Beza's N. T. (he leans to the latter
in preference^); but he speaks of the edition of 1624 as that
' omnibus acceptam ; ' and boldly states, with a confidence which
no doubt helped on its own accomplishment, ' textum ergo habes
nunc ab omnibus receptum, in quo nihil immutatum aut corrup-
tum damns.' His other profession, that of superior correctness,
is also a little premature : ' ut si quae vel minutissimae in nostro,
aut in iis, quos secuti sumus libris, superessent mendae, cum
judicio ac cura toUerentur.' Although some of the worst mis-
prints of the edition of 1624 are amended in that of 1633 (Matt.
vi. 34; Acts xxvii. 13 ; i Cor. x. 10 ; Col. ii. 13 ; i Thess. ii. 17;
Heb. viii. 9 ; 2 Pet. i. 7), others just as gross are retained (Acts
ix. 3 ; Eom. vii. 2 ; xiii. 5 ; i Cor. xU. 23 ; xiii. 3 ; a Cor. iv. 4 ;
v. 19 ; viii. 8; Heb. xii. 9 ; Apoc. iii. 12; vii. 7; xviii. 16), to
which much be added a few peculiar to itself (e.g. Mark iii. 10 ;
Eom. XV. 3 ; i Cor. ix. 2 ; a Cor. i. 11 ; vi. 16 ; Col. i. 7 ; iv. 7 ;
Apoc. xxii. 3) : iOvdr) in i Cor. v. 7 should not be reckoned as an

' Eeuss (p. -109) states that out of his thousand select examples Elzevir 1624
differs from Beza's smaller New Testament of 1566 in only eight readings, all of
which may he found in some of Beza's other editions (e. g. the small edition of
1580), except one misprint (Bom. Tii. 2).

(!■/^d

ELZEVIR. 195

erratum, since it was adopted designedly by Eeza, and after him
by both the Elzevir editions. Of real various readings between
the two Elzevirs we mark but seven or eight instances (in
six of which that of 1633 follows the Complutensian) ; viz.
Mark iv. 18 ; viii. 24 ; Luke xi. 33 ; xii. 20 ; John iii. 6 his ;
a Tim. i. 12 ; ivr-Sli ; Apoc. xvi. 5 : and in a Pet. i. 1 (as also in
ed. 1641) i\\x&v is omitted after a-cnTripos ^.

Since Stephen's edition of 1550 and that of the Elzevirs have
been taken as the standard or Received text ^, the former chiefly
in England, the latter on the Continentj and inasmuch as nearly
all collated manuscripts have been compared with one or the
other of these, it becomes absolutely necessary to know the
precise points in which they differ from each other, even to the
minutest errors of the press. Mill (N. T., Proleg., 1307) observed
but twelve such variations ; Tischendorf gives a catalogue of
150 (N. T., Proleg., p. Ixxxv, seventh edition). For the first
edition of the present work a list of 287 was drawn up, which,
it is hoped, will soon be reprinted, in a more convenient shape,
in a volume now in preparation *.

' Oi Sov\os is disputed by Hoskier (App. C. p. 18, n.), wlio says that he has
seen besides his own copy of 1624 several which read ot Sov\ov. He had also
inspected mine. 'And although he says it reads Sov\os, I read easily Sod\oi.
The type is rather faulty, that is all.' The point is not worth disputing.

' ' American Additions and Corrections,' p. 50.

' Professor Hall states (Schaff's ' Companion,' p. 501) that Beza's editions of
1588 and 1598 were the chief foundations of the Authorized Version of 1611. ^. '^if-/p
Archdeacon Palmer (Preface to Greek Testament with Revisers' Readings, p. vii)
refers chiefly to Stephen's edition of 1550. Dr. Scrivener (to whom Archdeacon
Palmer refers), Cambridge Greek Testament, Praef , p. vi, in taking the Elzevir
edition of 1624 as the authority for the 'Textus Eeceptus,' says that it rests
upon Stephen's 1550, and Beza's 1565, 1582, 1589 ( = 1588), and 1598 (especially ,
the later editions, and particularly 1598, Authorized Edition of the British
Bible, p. 60), besides also Erasmus, the Complutensian, and the Vulgate
(Authorized Edition, p. 60). Dr. Scrivener adds in the passage just named that
out of 252 passages the ' Translators abide with Beza against Stephen in 113,
with Stephen against Beza in fifty-nine, with the Complutensian, Erasmus, or
the Vulgate against both Stephen and Beza in eighty.'

' ' The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), its subsequent Reprints '
and Modern Representatives.'. By F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D., &c.,
Cambridge, University Press, 1884. Appendix E.

.C

ivoL. II. o a

CHAPTER VII {continued).

CEITICAL EDITIONS.

T^HE Science of Sacred Textual Criticism was built up in
successive Critical Editions of the Greek Testament, and to
a brief description of those this chapter will be devoted. It will
not include therefore any notice of editions like that of Valpy,
or of Bloomfield, or Alford, or Wordsworth, in which the textual
treatment did not assume prominence or involve advancement
in this province. Still less is there space for such a list of
general editions of the New Testament as the very valuable one
compiled by Dr. Isaac H. Hall, and found in Schaffs 'Companion
to the New Testament,' to which notice has been already directed.
The progress of Textual Science has involved two chief stages ;
the first, in which all evidence was accepted and registered,
and the second, when a selection was made and the rest either
partially or totally disregarded. Lachmann was the leader
in the second stage, of which to some extent Griesbach was
the pioneer. It is evident that in the future a return must be
made, as has been already advocated by many, to the principles
of the first stage ^.

1. R. Stephen was the first to bring together any considerable
body of manuscript evidence, however negligently or capriciously
he may have applied it to the emendation of the sacred text.
A succession of English scholars was now ready to follow him in
the same path, the only direct and sure one in criticism ; and for
about eighty years our countrymen maintaiaed the foremost
place in this important branch of Biblical learning. Their van

' See Miller's 'Textual Guide,' George Bell & Sons, 1885. Also Dr. Scrivener's
' Adversaria et Critica Sacra ' (not yet published). — Postscript.

R. STEPHEN. 197

was led by Brian Walton [1600-61], afterwards Bishop of
Chester, who published in 1657 the London Polyglott, which he
had planned twelve years before, as at once the solace and meet
employment of himself and a worthy band of colleagues during
that sad season when Christ's Church in England was for a while
trodden in the dust, and its ministers languished in silence and
deep poverty. The fifth of his huge folios was devoted to the
New Testament in six languages, viz. Stephen's Greek text of
1550^, the Peshitto-Syriac, the Latin Vulgate, the Ethiopic,
Arabic, and (in the Gospels only) the Persic. The exclusively
critical apparatus, with which alone we are concerned, consists
of the readings of Cod. A set at the foot of the Greek text,
and, in the sixth or supplementary volume, of Lucas Brugensis'
notes on various readings of the Gospels in Greek and Latin ;
of those given by the Louvain divines in their edition of the
Vulgate (Walton, Polygl., Tom. vi. No. xvii) ; and especially
of a collation of sixteen authorities, whereof all but three, viz.
Nos. 1, 15, 16 ^, had never been used before (Walton, Tom. vi.
No. xvi). These various readings had been gathered by the
care and diligence of Archbishop Ussher [1580-1656], then
living in studious and devout retirement near London ^. They
are as follows: — (1) Steph. the sixteen copies extracted from
Stephen's margin : (2) Cant, or Evan. D : (3) Clar. or Paul. D :
(4) Gon. or Evan. 59: (5) Em,, or Evan. 64, and also Act.
53 : (6) Goog. or Evan. 62 : (7) Mont, or Evan. 61 : (8) Lin. or
Evan. 56, and also Act. 33 : (9) Magd. 1 or Evan. 57 : (10)
Magd. 2 or Paul. 42: (11) Fov. 1 or Evan. 58: (12) iVo v. 2 or
Act. 36: (13) £odl. 1 or Evan. 47: (14) THt. or Bodl. 2, Evan.
96 : (15) March. Veles., the Velesian readings, described above,
Vol. i. p. 209 : (16) Bib. Week., the WecheHan readings, which
deserve no more regard than the Velesian. They were derived

' Eeuss (p. 56) excepts Matt. ix. 17 ; 2 Tim. iv. 13 ; Philem. 6, where Walton
prefers the Complutensian reading.

^ Nos. 2 and 3 had been partially used by Beza (American Additions, p. 50).

' If Ussher lacked severe accuracy in collating his manuscripts, as well as
skill in deciphering them, we have not to look far for the cause. In a Life pre-
fixed to XJssher's ' Body of Divinity,' 1678, p. 11, we are told that ' in the winter
evenings he constantly spent two hours in comparing old MSS. of the Bible,
Greek and Latin, taking with his owii hand the variae lectiones of each:' on
which statement Dean Bm-gon (Letter in the Guardian, June 28, 1882) makes
the pi-egnant comment, ' Such work carried on at seventy or more by candlelight,
is pretty sure to come to grief, especially when done with a heart-ache.'

igS CRITICAL EDITIONS.

from the margin of a Bible printed at Frankfort, 1597, by the
heirs of And. Wechel. It is indifferent whether they be
referred to Francis Junius or F. Sylburg as editors, since all
the readings in the New Testament are found in Stephen's
margin, or in the early editions.

Walton was thus enabled to publish very extensive additions
to the existing stock of materials. That he did not try by their
means to form thus early a corrected text, is not at all to be
regretted ; the time for that attempt was not yet arrived. He
cannot, however, be absolved from the charge to which R. Stephen
had been before amenable, of suppressing a large portion of
the collations which had been sent him. The Rev. C. B. Scott,
Head Master of Westminster School, found in the Library of
Emmanuel College, Cambridge, the readings of Codd. D. 59, 61,
62, prepared for Walton (Dobbin, Cod. Montfort., Introd. p. 21),
which Mill had access to, and in his N. T. made good use of, as
well as of Ussher's other papers (Mill, Prolog. § 1505).

2. Steph. CurceUaeus or CourceUes published his N.T. at
Amsterdam in 1658, before he had seen Walton's Polyglott.
The peculiar merit of his book arises from his marginal collec-
tion of parallel texts, which are more copious than those of his
predecessors, yet not too many for convenient use : later editors
have been thankful to take them as a basis for their own^.
There are many various readings ^ (some from two or three fresh
manuscripts) at the foot of each page, or thrown into an
appendix, mingled with certain rash conjectures which betray
a Socinian bias : but since the authorities are not cited for
each separate reading, these critical labours were as good as
wasted *.

• ' Sed, cum aliqui ex editoribus N. T. in analoglis disoemendis nimia fortasse
curiosi loca Parallela ad infinitum fere numerum auxerint, quorum alia parum
definitae similitudinis, alia remotioris sunt argumenti quam quae seryatis sanae
interpretationis legibus possint adhiberi, satius habuimus Curcellaeum sequi,
qui neo parcior est, nee nimia minutus in locis allegandia, nee diasimilia
unquam aut prorsus anpoatibmaa ad margiuem locavit.' — Car. Oxen. (Bishop
C. Lloyd) Monitum N. T. Oxonii, 1827.

' I John V. 7, 8 is included in brackets. Eeusa (p. 130) thinka that the text
foUowa Elzevir 1633 everywhere else but in Luke x. 22. Mill (N. T., Proleg.
5 1397) says that it was printed 'ad editiones priores Elzevirianas, typia
Elzevirianis nitidisaimis.'

' 'Stephani Curcellaei annotationes variantium lectionum, pro variantibus
lectionibus non habeudae, quia ille non notat codices, unde eas habeat, an ex

FELL. 199

3. A more important step in advance was taken in the Greek
Testament in 8vo, issued' from the Oxford University Press in
1675. This elegant volume (whose Greek text is mainly that of
Elzevir 1633 1) was superintended by John Fell [1625-86], Dean
of Christ Church, soon afterwards Bishop of Oxford, the bio-
grapher of saint-like Hammond, himself one of the most learned
and munificent, if not quite the most popular Prelate, of that
golden age of the English Church, in whose behalf Anthony
k Wood designates him ' the most zealous man of his time.' His
brief yet interesting Preface not only discusses the causes of
various readings^, and describes the materials used for his
edition, but touches on that weak and ignorant prejudice which
had been already raised against the collection of such variations
in the text of Scripture ; and that too sometimes by persons like
John Owen ^ the Puritan, intrusive Dean of Christ Church under
Cromwell, who, but that we are loth to doubt his integrity,
would hardly be deemed a victim of the panic he sought to
spread. In reply to all objectors the Bishop pleads the com-
parative insignificance of the change produced by various
readings in the general sense of Holy Writ, and especially urges
that God hath dealt so bountifully with His people ' ut necessaria
quaeque et ad salutis summam facientia in S. Uteris saepius re-
peterentur; ita ut si forte quidpiam minus commode alicubi
expressum, id damnum aliunde reparari possit' (Praef. p. 1).

manuscriptis, an vero ex impressis exemplaribus. Possiint etiam pro uno codice
haberi.' Canon xiu. pp. 11, 69-70 of the N. T. by G. D. T. M. D. (see below,
p. 204).

'■ But it goes -witli Elz. 1624 in Mark iv. 18 ; 2 Tim. i. 12 ; Apoe. xvi. 5, and
sometimes prefers the readings of Stephen 1550, e. g. Mai'k i. 21 ; vi. 29, and
notably Luke ii. 22 (airSiv) ; Luke x. 22 ; Eom. vii. 2 ; Philem. 7. Peculiarities
of this edition are Ei Si for Etra Heb. xii. 9 ; avyK\ripov6fiois i Pet. iii. 7. Wet-
stein's text follows its erratum, Acts xiii. 29 lTi\r)aav. Mill seems to say (K. T.,
Proleg. § 1409) that Fell's text was taken from that of Curoellaeus.

" Pell imputes the origin of various readings to causes generally recognized, add-
ing one which does not seem very probable, that accidental slips once made were
retained and propagated through a superstitious feeling of misplaced reverence,
citing in illustration Apoc. xxii. 18, 19. He alleges also the well-known sub-
scription of Irenaeus, preserved by Eusebius, which will best be considered
hereafter ; and remarks, with whatever truth, that contrary to the practice of
the Jews and Muhammedans in regard to their sacred books, it was allowed
' e vulgo quibusvls, calamo pariter et manu profanis, sacra ista [N. T.] tractare '
(Praef. p. 4).

' ' Considerations on the Biblia Polyglotta,' 1659 : to which Walton rejoined,
sharply enough, in ' The Considerator considered,' also in 1659.

200 CRITICAL EDITIONS.

On this assurance we may well rest in peace. This edition is
more valuable for the impulse it gave to subsequent investigators
than for the richness of its own stores of fresh materials, although
it is stated on the title-page to be denyed ' ex plus 100' MSS.
Codicibus.' Patristic testimony, as we have seen. Bishop Fell
rather undervalued : the use of versions he clearly perceived,
yet of those at that time available, he only attends to the
Gothic and Coptic as revised by Marshall: his list of manu-
scripts hitherto untouched is very scanty. To those used by
Walton we can add only R, the Barberini readings, then just
published (see p. 210) ; B, twelve Bodleian codices ' quorum
plerique intacti prius,' in no-wise described, and cited only by
the number of them which may countenance each variation ;
U, the two Ussher manuscripts Evan. 63, 64 as collated by
H. Dodwell; P, three copies from the Library of Petavius
(Act. 38, 89, 40); Ge., another from St. Germains (Paul. E):
the readings of the last four were furnished by Joh. Gachon.
Yet this slight volume f(for so we must needs regard it)
was the legitimate parent of one of the noblest works in
the whole range of Biblical literature, of which we shall speak
next.

4. Novum Tbstamentum Graecum of Dr. John Mill, Oxford,
1707, in folio. This able and laborious critic, born in 1645,
quitted his native village in Westmoreland at sixteen for Queen's
College, Oxford, of which society he became a Fellow, and was
conspicuous there both as a scholar and as a ready extemporary
preacher. In 1685 his College appointed him Principal of its
affiliated Hall, St. Edmund, so honourably distinguished for the
Biblical studies of its members ; but Mill had by that time made
good progress in his Greek Testament, on which he gladly spent
the last thii-ty years of his life, dying suddenly in 1707, a fort-
night after its publication. His attention was first called to the
subject by his friend, Dr. Edward Bernard, the Savilian Professor
at Oxford, whom he vividly represents as setting before him an
outline of the work, and encouraging him to attempt its accom-
plishment. ' Vides, Amice mi, opus . . . omnium, mihi crede,
long^ dignissimum, cui in hoc aetatis tuae flore, robur animi
tui, vigilias ac studia^ liberaliter impendas' (Proleg. § 1417).
Ignorant as yet both of the magnitude and difficulty of his task,

MILL. 201

Mill boldly undertook it about 1677, and bis efforts soon
obtained tbe countenance of Bishop Fell, who promised to defray
the expense of printing, and, mindful of the frailty of life, urged
him to go to press before his papers were quite ready to meet
the public eye. When about twenty ^our chapters of St. Matthew
had been completed. Bishop Fell died prematurely in 1686, and
the book seems to have languished for many following years
from lack of means, though the editor was busy all the while in
gathering and arranging his materials, especially for the Prole-
gomena, which well deserve to be called 'marmore perenniora.'
As late as 1704 John Sharp [1644-1714], Archbishop of York,
whose remonstrances to Queen Anne some years subsequently
hindered the ribald wit that wrote 'A Tale of a Tub' from
polluting the episcopal throne of an English see, obtained from
her for Mill a stall at Canterbury, and the royal command to
prosecute his New Testament forthwith. The preferment came
just in time. Three years afterwards the volume was given to
the Christian world, and its author's course was already
finished : his life's work well ended, he had entered upon his
rest. He was spared the pain of reading the unfair attack alike
on his book and its subject by our eminent Commentator, Daniel
Whitby (' Examen Variantium Lectionum,' 1710), and of witness-
ing the unscrupulous use of Whitby's arguments made by the
sceptic Anthony Collins in his 'Discourse of Free Thinking,'
1713.

Dr. Mill's services to Biblical criticism surpass in extent and
value those rendered by any other, except perhaps one or two
men of our own time. A large proportion of his care and pains,
as we have seen already, was bestowed on the Fathers and
ancient writers of every description who have used or cited
Scripture. The versions are usually considered his weakest
point, although he fii-st accorded to the Vulgate and to its proto-
type the Old Latin the importance they deserve. His knowledge
of Syriac was rather shght, and for the other Eastern tongues,
if he was not more ignorant than his successors, he had not
discovered how little Latin translations of the Ethiopic, &c., can
be trusted. As a collator of manuscripts the list subjoined will
bear full testimony to his industry : without seeking to repeat
details we have entered into before under the Cursive MSS., it is
right to state that he either himself re-examined, or otherwise

202

CRITICAL EDITIONS.

represented more fully and exactly, the codices that had been
previously used for the London Polyglott and the Oxford N. T.
of 1675. Still it would be wrong to dissemble the fact that
Mill's style of collation is not such as the strictness of modern
scholarship demands. He seldom notices at all such varioua
readings as arise from the transposition of words, the insertion
or omission of the Greek article, from homoeoteleuta, or itacisms,
or from manifest errors of the pen ; while in respect to general
accuracy he is as much inferior to those who have trod in his
steps, as he rises above Stephen and Ussher, or the persons
employed by Walton and Fell. It has been my fortune to
collate not a few manuscripts after this great critic, and I have
elsewhere been obliged to notice these plain facts, I would fain
trust in no disparaging temper. During the many years that
Mill's N. T. has been my daily companion, my reverence for that
diligent and earnest man has been constantly growing : the
principles of internal evidence which guided his choice between
conflicting authorities were simple (as indeed they ought to be),
but applied with rare judgement, sagacity, and moderation:
his zeal was unflagging, his treatment of his sacred subject
deeply reverential. Of the criticism of the New Testament in
the hands of Dr. John Mill it may be said, that he found the
edifice of wood, and left it marble.

The following Catalogue of the manuscripts known to Mill exhibits the
abridged form in which he cites them, together with the more usual notation,
whereby they are described in this work, and will tepd, it is believed, to facili-
tate the use of Mill's N. T.

Alex Cod. A

Barb Evan. 112

(Wetstein)

Baroc Act. 23

B. 1 Evan. E

3.2 Act. 2

B.S Act. 4

Bodl.l Evan. 45

Bodl.2 Evan. 46

Bodl.3 Evst. 5

Bodl.i Evst. 18

Bodl.5 Evst. 19

podl.6 Evan. 47

Bodl.7 Evan. 48

Bu Evan. 70

Cant. Evan. Act.D

Cant. 2 Act. 24

Cant. 3 Act. 63

Clar Paul. D

Colb. 1 Evan. 27

Colb.2 Evan. 28

Colb. 3 Evan. 29

Colb. 4 Evan.30,81

Colb. 5 Evan. 32

CoU). 6 J Act. 13

Colb.7 [Paul. 17

Cdb. 8 ) Evan. 33

Colb. 9 = Colb. 1
Colb. 10 = Colb. 2
Colb. 11 = Colb, 1

Cov. 1 Evan. 65

Gov. 2 Act. 25

Cm. 3 Act. 26

Cov. 4 Act. 27

Cot. 5 Sin. ...Act. 28

Cypr Evan. K

Em see Evan. 61

Eph Evan. 71

Gal Evan. 66

Ger. Paul. E

Geneo Act. 29

Go Evan. 62

Gon Evan. 59

Hunt. 1 Act. 30

Hunt. 2 Evan. 67

L Evan. 69

Laud. 1 Evan. 50

Laud.2 Evan. 51 ■

MILL.

203

Laud. 8 .

....Act. E
....Evst. 20

N.2...

Act. 37

Trin

Trit.

..Apost. 8

Laiid. i .

Per. ...

Evan. 91

..Evan. 96

Laud. 5 .

....Evan. 52

Pel.l

Act. 88

Vat.

..Cod. B

Lin

....Evan. 56

Pet. 2,
Pets

Act. 39

Act. 40

Vd.

Evan. Ill

Lin. 2 ....

....Act. 33

(Wetstein)

Lu

....Act. 21

Boe.l

Evtin. 49

Vim.

..Evan. 76

M.l

....Evan. 60

Roe. 2

Paul. 47

Vsser.l ....

..Evan. 63

M.2

....Evst. 4

SeW. 1

Evan. 53

Usser. 2 ....

..Evan. 64

Magd. 1 .

....Evan. 57

Seld. 2

Evan. 54

Wheel. 1 ....

..Evan. 68

Magd. 2 .

....Paul. 42

Seld. 3

Evan. 55

Wheel.2 ....

..Evan. 95

Med

....Evan. 42

Seld. 4

Evst. 21

WMd. 3 ....

..Evst. 3

Mmt. ....

....Evan. 61

SeU. 5

Evst. 22

Week, videas

p. 191

N. 1

....Evan. 58

Steph.

codices xvr. videas

if. 1

....Act. 36

pp. 190-191

Mill merely drew from other sources Barb., Steph., Tel, Wech. ; the copies
deposited abroad (B 1-3, aar., Colb. 1-11, O/pr., Geneo., Med., Per., Pet. 1-3, Vat,
Vien.), and Trin. or Apost. 3 he only knew from readings sent to him ; all the
rest, not being included in Walton's list, and several of them also, he collated
for himself.

The Prolegomena of Mill, divided into three parts — (1) on
the Canon of the New Testament ; (2) on the History of the
Text, including the quotations of the Fathers and the early-
editions ; and (3) on the plan and contents of his own work, —
though by this time too far behind the present state of knowledge
to bear reprinting, comprise a monument of learning such as the
world has seldom seen, and contain much information the student
will not even now easily find elsewhere. Although Mill per-
petually pronounces his judgement on the character of disputed
readings ^, especially in his Prolegomena, which were printed long
after some portions of the body of the work, yet he only aims at
reproducing Stephen's text of 1550, though in a few places he
departs from it, whether by accident or design ^.

In 1710 Ludolph Kuster,' a Westphalian, republished Mill's

* Dr. Hort says that 'his comprehensive examination of individual docu-
ments, seldom rising above the wilderness of multitudinous details, [is] yet full
of sagacious observations ' (Introd. p. 180).

' As Mill's text is sometimes reprinted in England as if it were quite identical
with that commonly received, it is right to note the follovtring passages
wherein it does not coincide vrith Stephen's of 1550, besides that it corrects his
typographical errors : Matt. xx. 15 ; 22 ; xxiv. 15 ; Mark ix. 16 ; xi. 22 ; xv. 29 ;
Luke vii. 12 iis ; x. 6 ; xvii. 1 ; John viii. 4 ; 25 ; xiii. 30-31 ; xix. 7 ; Acts ii.
36 ; vii. 17 ; xiv. 8 ; Kom. xvi. 11 ; i Cor. iii. 15 ; x. 10 ; xv. 28 ; a Cor. vi. 16 ;
Eph. iv. 25 ; Tit. ii. 10 ; i Pet. iH. 11 ; 21 ; iv. 8 ; a Pet. ii. 12 ; Apoc. ii. 5 ; xx.
4. Eeuss (p. 149) tells us that Kuster's edition recalls the Stephanie readings in
Matt. xxiv. 15 ; Apoc. ii. 5,

204 CRITICAL EDITIONS.

Greek Testament, in folio, at Amsterdam and Rotterdam (or with
a new title page, Leipsic, 1723, Amsterdam, 1746), arranging in its
proper place the matter cast by Mill into his Appendix, as having
reached him too late to stand in his critical notes, and adding to
those notes the readings of twelve fresh manuscripts, one collated
by Kuster himself, which he describes in a Preface well worth
reading. Nine of these codices collated by, or under, the Abb^
de Louvois are in the Eoyal Library at Paris (viz. Paris. 1,
which is Evan. 285; Paris. 2=Evan. M; Paris. 3= Evan.
9 ; Paris. 4=Evan. 11 ; Paris. 5 = Evan. 119 ; Paris. 6 = Evan.
13; Paris. 7=Evan. 14; Paris. 8 = Evan. 15; Paris. 9=the
great Cod. C): but Zi^s. = Evan. 78 was collated by Boerner;
Seidel.= Ast. 42 by Westermann ; £oerner. = Piiul. G by Kuster
himself He keeps his own notes separate from Mill's by pre-
fixing and affixing the marks f, ^, and his collations both of his
own codices and of early editions will be found more complete
than his predecessor's.

5. In the next year after Kuster's MiU (1711), appeared at
Amsterdam, from the- press of the Wetsteins, a small N. T.,
8v0j containing all the critical matter of the Oxford edition of
1675, a collation of one Vienna manuscript (Caes.= Evan. 76), 43
ca,nons ' secundum quos variantes lectiones N. T. examinandae,'
and discussions upon them, with other matter, especially parallel
texts, forming a convenient manual, the whole by G.D.T.M.D.,
which being interpreted means Gerhard de Trajecto Mosae Doctor,
this Gerhard von Mastricht being a Syndic of Bremen. The text
is Fell's, except in Apoc. iii. 12, where the portentous erratum
Xau for va£ of Stephen is corrected. A second and somewhat
improved edition was published in 1785, but ere that date the
book must have become quite superseded.

6. We have to return to England once more, where the criti-
cism of the New Testament had engrossed the attention of
RiCHABD Bentley [1662— 1742], whose elevation to the enviable
post of Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1699, was a just
recognition of his supremacy in the English world of letters.
As early as 1691 he had felt a keen interest in sacred criticism,
and in his 'Epistola ad Johannem Millium' had urged that
editor, in language fraught with eloquence and native vigour, to

BENTLEY. 205

hasten on the work (whose accomplishment was eventually
left to others) of publishing side by side on the opened leaf
Codd. A, D (Bezae), D (Clarom.), E (Laud.). For many years
afterwards Bentley's laurels were won on other fields, and it was
not tiU his friend was dead, and his admirable labours were
exposed to the obloquy of opponents (some honest though
unwise, others hating Mill because they hated the Scriptures
which he sought to illustrate), that our Aristarchus exerted
his giant strength to crush the infidel and to put the ignorant
to silence. In his 'Remarks upon a late Discourse of Free
Thinking in a letter to F[rancis] H[are] D.D. by Phileleutherus
Lipsiensis,' 1713, Bentley displayed that intimate familiarity
with the whole subject of various readings, their causes, extent,
and consequences, which has rendered this occasional treatise
more truly valued (as it was far more important) than the
world-renowned ' Dissertation upon the Epistles of Phalaris '
itself. As his years were now hastening on and the evening
of life was beginning to draw nigh, it was seemly that the first
scholar of his age should seek for his rare abilities an employ-
ment more entirely suited to his sacred office than even the
most successful cultivation of classical learning ; and so, about
this time, he came to project what he henceforth regarded
as his greatest efi"ort, an edition of the Greek New Testament.
In 1716 we find him in conference with J. J. Wetstein, then
very young, and seeking his aid in procuring collations.
In the same year he addressed his memorable ' Letter ' to
Wm. Wake [1657-1737], Archbishop of Canterbury, whose
own mind was fuU of the subject, wherein he explains, with
characteristic energy and precision, the principles on which he
proposed to execute his great scheme. As these principles must
be reviewed afterwards, we will but touch upon them now.
His theory was built upon the notion that the oldest manuscripts
of the Greek original and of Jerome's Latin version resemble
each other so marvellously, even in the very order of the words,
that by this agreement he could restore the text as it stood in
the fourth century, ' so that there shall not be twenty words, or
even particles, difference,' ' By taking two thousand errors out
of the Pope's [i. e. the Clementine] Vulgate, and as many out of
the Protestant Pope Stephen's [1550], I can set out an edition of
each in columns, without using any book under nine hundred

2o6 CRITICAL EDITIONS.

years old, that shall so exactly agree word for word, and, what
at first amazed me, order for order, that no two tallies, nor two
indentures, can agree better^.' In 1720, some progress having
been made in the task of collation, chiefly at Paris, by John
Walker, Fellow of Trinity, who was designated by Bentley
' overseer and corrector of the press,' but proved in fact a great
deal more ; Bentley published his Proposals for Printing ^, a work
which ' he consecrates, as a Keijirikiov, a KTrjua ea-aeC, a charter,
a magna chartd, to the whole Christian Church ; to last when
all the ancient MSS. here quoted may be lost and extinguished.'
Alas for the emptiness of human anticipations ! Of this noble
design, projected by one of the most diligent, by one of the most
highly gifted men our dear mother Cambridge ever nourished,
nothing now remains but a few scattered notices in treatises on
Textual Criticism, and large undigested stores of various readings
and random observations, accumulated in his College Library;
papers which no real student ever glanced through, but with
a heart saddened— almost sickened — at the sight of so much
labour lost ^. The specimen chapter (Apocalypse xxii) which
accompanied his Proposals shows clearly how little had yet been
done towards arranging the materials that had been collected ;
codices are cited there, and in many of his loose notes, not
separately and by name, as in Mill's volume, but mostly as
' Anglicus unus, tres codd. veterrimi. Gall, quatuor. Germ, unus,'
&c., in the rough fashion of the Oxford N. T. of 1675 *.

' Ellis, Bentleii Critica Sacra, Introductory Preface, p. xv.

' Ellis, uK supra, pp. xvii-xix. These Proposcds were also very properly
reprinted by Tisohendorf (N. T., Prolog. Ixxxvii-xcvi, 7th edition), together
with the specimen chapter (Apoo. xxii). The full title was to have been :
'"H KAINH AIA0HKH Graece. Novum Testamentum Versionis Vulgatae, per
gtrnn Hieryonymum ad vetusta exemplaria Graeca castigatae et exactae. Utrum-
que ex antiquissimis Codd. MSS., cum Graecis turn Latinis, edidit Richardus
Beutleius.'

^ This is all the more lamentable, inasmuch as Bentley was not accurate
enough as a collator to make it unnecessary to follow him over the same ground.
Dr. Westoott coniirms my own experience in this respect when in a MS. note
inserted by him on a blank leaf of Trin. Coll. B. xvii. 14, he states that
' Bentley's testimony, when he quotes a reading, may always be taken as true ;
but it is not so when he notes no variation in particular. On an average he
omits one-third of the variations of the MSS., without following, as far as I
can discover, any law in the selection of readings.'

' Bp. John VP^ordsworth would vindicate both Bentley and Walker from
the suspicion of lightly taking up and lightly dropping so important a task.
Walker, whom Bentley, as is said, called ' Clarissimus Walker,' died on Nov. 9,

BENTLEY. 207

It has been often alleged that Bentley seems to have worked
but little on the Greek Testament after 1729 : that his attention
was diverted by his editions of Paradise Lost (1733) and of
Manilius (1739), by his Homeric studies and College litigation,
until he was overtaken by a paralytic stroke in 1739, and died
in his eighty-first year in 1742. Walker's collations of cursive
manuscripts at Christ Church (Evan. 506), however, obviously
made for Bentley's use, bear the date of 1732 ^ , and a closer
examination of his papers, bequeathed in 1786 by his nephew
Eichard Bentley to Trinity College, shows that much more
progress had been made by him than has been usually supposed.
Besides full collations of the uncial Codd. AD (Gospels and Acts),
of Cod. F (his e) and G of St. Paul, of Arundel 547 (Evst. 257)
executed by Bentley himself, of Codd. B and C by others at
his cost, three volumes are found there full of critical materials,
which have been described by Mr. Ellis, and digested by Dr.
Westcott. One of these (B. xvii. 5) I was allowed by the
Master and Seniors to study at leisure at home. It is a folio
edition of the N.T., Greek and Latin (Paris, ap. Claud. Sonnium,
1628, the Greek text being that of Elzevir 1634), whose margin
and spaces between the lines are filled with various readings in
Bentley's hand, but not all of them necessarily the results of his
own labour, collected out of ten Greek and thirty Latin
manuscripts. The Greek are all cursives save Evst. 5, and his
connexion with them has been referred to above under the
Cursive MSS. They are

Evan. 51 (y), Evan. 507 (r),

... 54 (k), ... 508 (S),

... 60(e), Act. 23 (x),

... 113(5 1), Apoc. 28 (k),

... 440 (o), Evst. 5 (a).

The Latin copies, which alone are described by Bentley in the
fly-leaves of the volume, may not be as easily identified, but

1741, at the age of forty-eight. — ^Wordsworth, Old Biblical Texts, I. xxv. p. 65.
And for the Latin and Greek Texts collated by him wholly or partially, see
pp. 55-68.

'■ He continued this work till after 1735. See paper found by Dr. Ince at
Christ Church, quoted by Bp. J. Wordsworth, Old Latin Biblical Texts, I. xxv.
note 2.

208 CRITICAL EDITIONS.

some of them are of great value, and are described above in
Chap. III. These are

' chad, (i), oxon. (C),

dunelm. (K), oomn. (Paul, x),

harl? (M), seld. (Act. x),

lind. (tj), vail.,

mac-regol (x), Westcott adds harl.^ (H).

A second mass of materials, all Latin, about twenty in
number, and deposited in England, is contained in the first
volume of the Benedictine edition of St. Jerome's works (Paris,
1693). In this book (B. xvii. 14) Dr. Westcott has pasted a
valuable note, wherein he identifies the manuscripts used by
Bentley by the means of his own actual collation. Those
described above in Chap. Ill are the following :

B. M. Harl. 1802 (W),

harl.^ (M. of Epistles, &c.),
Addit. 5463 (F),
King's Lib. I. A. 18 (0),

I. B. VII. (H),

I. E. VI. (P),
C. C. C. Camb. 286 (B),
Trin. Coll. Camb. B. x. 5 (S),

B. X. 4 (T, iUd.),
lind. (Y : as in B. xvii. 5),
Camb. Univ. Lib. Kk. i. 24 (x).

Westcott further appropriates B. M. Cotton, Otho B. ix, as
Bentley's D ; Cotton Tib. A. ii (' the Coronation book ') as his e ;
Cotton Otho C. V as his (p; C. C. C. Camb. 197 as his C ; King's
Library 1 D. ix as his A. His ^ in B. xvii. 14 seems unrecognized.

These, of course, are no more than the rough materials of
criticism. Another copy of the N. T. has been carefully and
curiously made available for my use by the goodness of my
friend Edwin Palmer, D.D., Archdeacon of Oxford. It is num-
bered B. xvii. 6, and is a duplicate copy (without its title-page) of
the same printed book as B. xvii. 5. It is interleaved throughout,
and was prepared very early in the course of this undertaking,
inasmuch as Bentley describes it in an undated letter to Wet-
stein, which the latter answered Nov. 3, 1716. In the printed

BENTLEY. 209

text itself, both Greek and Latin, as they stand in parallel
columns, Bentley makes the corrections which he at that period
was willing to adopt. There is no critical apparatus to justify
his changes in the Latin version, but on the blank leaves of
the book he sets down his Greek authorities, always cited
by name, as Alex., Cant., Rom. (Cod. B.), Ox. in the Acts
(Cod. E), e in St. Paul for Cod. Augiensis (F), though this last
did not reach him before 1718. Cod. C is sometimes called
Eph., sometimes it is mixed up with Wetstein's other copies
(1 Wetstein, 2 Wetstein, &c.). This most interesting volume,
therefore, contains the first draft of Bentlej''3 great design,
and must have been nearly in its present state when the ' Pro-
posals ' were published in 1720, since the specimen chapter
(Apoc. xxii) which accompanied them is taken verbatim from
B. xvii. 6, save that authorities are added to vindicate the
alterations of the Latin text, which is destitute of them in
the printed book. Mr. Ellis too has printed the Epistle to the
Galatians from the same source, and this specimen also produces
much the same impression of meagreness and imperfection. It
was doubtless in some degree to remedy an apparent crudeness
that cursive copies were afterwards called in, as in B. xvii. 5 and
in Walker's Oxford collections. The fact is that Bentley's main
principle, as set forth by him from 1716 to 1720, that of sub-
stantial identity between the oldest Greek and Latin copies, is
more favoured by Cod. A, which he knew soonest and best, than
by any other really ancient documents, least of all by Cod. B,
with which he obtained fuller acquaintance in or about 1720.
Our Aristarchus then betook himseK at intervals to cursive
codices in the vain hope of getting aid from them, and so lost his
way at last in that wide and pathless wilderness. We cannot
but believe that nothing less than the manifest impossibility of
maintaining the principles which his 'Letter' of 1716 enunciated,
and his 'Proposals ' of 1720 scarcely modified, in the face of the
evidence which his growing mass of collations bore against
them ^, could have had power enough to break off in the midst

* Mr. Jebb (Life of Bentley, p. 164) imputes the failure of Bentley's grand
scheme partly to the worry of litigation which harassed him from 1729 to 1738 ;
partly to a, growing sense of complexity in the problem of the text, especially
after he became better acquainted with the Vatican readings, i. e. about 1720
and 1729. Beuss (p. 172) ought never to have conditioned the ultimate sudcess
of such a man by the proviso ' si consilio par fuerit perseverantia.'
VOL. II. P

2IO CRITICAL EDITIONS.

that labour of love from which he had looked for undying
fame ^-

7. The anonymous text and version of William Mace, said to
have been a Presbyterian minister (' The New Testament in
Greek and English,' 2 vols. 8vo, 1729), are alike unworthy of
serious notice, and have long since been forgotten ^. And now
original research in the science of Biblical criticism, so far as
the New Testament is concerned, seems to have left the shores
of England, to return no more for upwards of a century ^ ; and
we must look to Germany if we wish to trace the further
progress of investigations which our countrymen had so au-
spiciously begun. The first considerable eflFort made on the
Continent was

8. The New Testament of John Albert Bengel, 4to, Tubingen,
1734 * : his ' Prodromus N. T. Gr. recte cautfeque adornandi ' had
appeared as early as 1725. This devout and truly able man
[1687-1752], who held the office (whatever might be its func-

' 'This thought has now so engaged me, and in a manner inslaved me, that
vae mihi unless I do it. Nothing but sickness (by the blessing of God) shall
hinder me from prosecuting it to the end ' (Bentley to Archbp. Wake, 1716 :
Ellis, ubi supra, p. xvi). A short article in the Edinburgh Beview for July, 1860,
apparently from the pen of Ti-egellea, draws attention to 'Nieolai Toinardi
Harmonia G-raeco-Latina,' Paris, 1707, fol. (' liber rarissipaus,' Reuss, p. 167), who
so far anticipates Bentley's labours, that he forms a new Greek text by the aid of
two Eoman manuscripts (Cod. B being one of them) and of the Latin version.

' Dr. Gregory says that though Mace's edition had no accents or soft breathing,
he anticipates most of the changes accepted by some critics of the present day.

° I cannot help borrowing the language of Donaldson, used with reference to
an entirely different department of study, in the opening of one of his earliest
and by far his most enduring work : ' It may be stated as a fact worthy of
observation in the literary history of modern Europe, that generally, when one
of our countrymen has made the first advance in any branch of knowledge, we
have acquiesced in what he has done, and have left the further improvement of
the subject to our neighbours on the continent. The man of genius always
finds an utterance, for he is urged on by an irresistible impulse — a conviction
that it is his duty and vocation to speak : but we too often want those who shall
follow in his steps, clear up what he has left obscure, and complete his unfinished
labours ' (New Cratylus, p. 1). Dr. Gregoi-y quotes against Di-. Scrivener, Mace
(1729), Bovfyer, a follower of Wetstein (1763), Harwood (1776), besides Whitby,
Middleton, and Twells : but Dr. S. looked for greater names, and till Middleton,
a more advancing study.

* The full title is '"H xaivi) StaB^xTj. Novum Testamentum Graecum ita
adomatum ut Textus probatarum editionum medullam, Marge variantium lec-
tionum in suas classes distributarum locorumque parellelorum delectum, Appa'
ratus subjunotus criseos sacrae Millianae praesertim compendium limam supple-
mentum ac fructum ezhibeat, inserviente 3. A, B.'

BENGEL. 211

tions) of Abbot of Alpirspach in the Lutheran communion of
Wiirttemberg, though more generally known as an interpreter of
Scripture from his invaluable ' Gnomon Novi Testamenti,' yet
left the stamp of his mind deeply imprinted on the criticism of
the sacred volume. As a collator his merits were not high ;
nearly all his sixteen codices have required and obtained fresh
examination from those who came after him ^. His text, which
he arranged in convenient paragraphs, as has been said, is the
earliest important specimen of intentional departure from the
received type; hence he imposes on himself the strange restriction
of admitting into it no reading (excepting in the Apocalypse)
which had not appeared in one or more of the editions that
preceded his own. He pronounces his opinion on other select
variations by placing them in his lower margin with Greek
numerals attached to them, according as he judged them deci-
dedly better (a), or somewhat more likely (/3), than those which
stand in his text : or equal to them (y) ; or a little (8), or con-
siderably (e), inferior. This notation has advantages which
iriight well have commended it to the attention of succeeding
editors. In his 'Apparatus Criticus' also, at the end of his
volume, he set the example, now generally followed, of recording
definitely the testimony in favour of a received reading, as well
as that against it.

But the peculiar importance of Bengel's N. T. is due to the
critical principles developed therein. Not only was his native
acuteness of great service to him, when weighing the conflicting
probabilities of internal evidence, but in his fertile mind
sprang up the germ of that theory of families or recensions,
which was afterwards expanded by J. S. Semler [1725-91],
and grew to such formidable dimensions in the skilful
hands of Griesbach. An attentive student of the discrepant
readings of the N. T., even in the limited extent they had
hitherto been collected, could hardly fail to discern that certain
manuscripts, versions, and ecclesiastical writers have a manifest

' They consist of seven Augsburg codices {Aug. l = Evan. 83 ; Aug. 2 =
Evan. 84; Auig. 3=Evan. 85; Aug. 4 = Evst. 24; Aug. 5 = Paiil. 54; Aug. 6
=Act. 46 ; Aug. 7=Apoc. 80) ; Poson.= Evan. 86; extracts sent by Isel from
three Basle copies {Bos. a = Evan. E; Bas. i8=Evan. 2; Bos. 7 = Evan. 1);
Hirsaug. ='Eva,n. 97; Jlfosc.=Evan. V; extracts sent by F. C. Gross. To these
add Uffenbaeh'a three, TJffm. 2 or l = Paul. M ; Uffm. 1 or 2= Act. 45 ; TJffm, 3
=Evan. 101.

P2

212 CRITICAL EDITIONS.

aflanity with each other; so that one of them shall seldom
be cited in support of a variation (not being a manifest and
gross error of the copyist), unless accompanied by several of
its kindred. The inference is direct and clear, that documents
which thus withdraw themselves from the general mass of au-
thorities, must have sprung from some common source, distinct
from those which in characteristic readings they but slightly
resemble. It occurred, therefore, to Bengel as a hopeful mode
of making good progress in the criticism of the N. T., to reduce
all extant testimony into 'companies, families, tribes, and
nations,' and thus to simplify the process of settling the sacred
text by setting class over against class, and trying to estimate
the genius of each, and the relative importance they may seve-
rally lay claim to. He wished to divide all extant documents
into two nations : the Asiatic, chiefly written in Constantinople
and its neighbourhood, which he was inclined to disparage ; and
the African, comprising the few of a better type (' Apparatus
Criticus,' p. 669, 2nd edition, 1763). Various circumstances
hindered Bengel from working out his principle, among which
he condescends to set his dread of exposing his task to senseless
ridicule ^ ; yet no one can doubt that it comprehends the ele-
ments of what is both reasonable and true ; however difficult
it has subsequently proved to adjust the details of any con-
sistent scheme. For the rest, Bengel's critical verdicts, always
considered in relation to his age and opportunities, deserve
strong commendation. He saw the paramount worth of Cod. A,
the only great uncial then much known (N. T., Apparat. Crit.,
pp. 390-401). The high character of the Latin version, and the

* It is worth while to quote at length Bengel's terse and vigorous statement
of his principle : ' Posset Tariarum leotionum ortus, per singulos codices, per
paria oodicum, per syzygias minores majoresque, per familias, tribus, nationesque
illorum, investigari et repraesentari ; et iude propinquitates discessionesque
oodicum ad schematismos quosdam reduci, et schematismorum aliquae concor-
dantiae fieri ; atque ita res tota per tabulam quandam quasi genealogicam oculis
subjici, ad quam tabulam quaelibet varietas insignior cum agmine suorum codi-
cum, ad conTincendos etiam tardissimos dubitatores exigeretur. Magnam con-
jectanea nostra sylvam habent : sed manum de tabula, ne risuum periculo
exponatur Veritas. Bene est, quod praetergredi montem hunc, et planiore via
pervenire datur ad codices discriminandos. Datur autem per hanc regulam
aequissimam : Quo saepius non mode singuli codices, sed etiam syzygiae minores
eorum vel majores, in aberrationes manifestas tendunt ; eo levius ferunt testi-
monium in discrepantiis diffioilioribus, eoque magis lectio ab eia deserta, tanquam
genuina rotineri debet' (If. T., Apparat. Grit., p. 387).

WETSTEIN. 213

necessity for revising its text by means of manuscripts (ibid.,
p. 391), he readily conceded, after Bentley's example. His
mean estimate of the Greek-Latin codices (Evan. Act. D ; Act. E;
Paul. DFG) may not find equal favour in the eyes of all his
admirers ; he pronounces them ' re ver^ biUngues ; ' which, for
their perpetual and wilful interpolations, 'non pro codicibus sed
pro rhapsodiis, haberi debeant' (ibid., p. 386)^.

9. The next step in advance was made by John James
Wetstein [1693-1754], a native of Basle, whose edition of the
Greek New Testament (' cum lectionibus variantibus Codicum
MSS., Editionum aliarum, Versionum et Patrum, necnon Com-
mentario pleniore ex scriptoribus veteribus, Hebraeis, Graecis,
et Latinis, histbriam et vim verborum illustrante ') appeared in
two volumes, folio, Amsterdam, 1751-3. The genius, the cha-
racter, and (it must in justice be added) the worldly fortunes
of Wetstein were widely difierent from those of the good Abbot
of Alpirspach. His taste for Bibhcal studies showed itself early.
When ordained pastor at the age of twenty he delivered a
disputation, ' De variis N. T. lectionibus,' and zeal for this
fascinating pursuit became at length with him a passion — the
master-passion which consoled and dignified a roving, troubled,
unprosperous life. In 1714 his eager search for manuscripts
led him to Paris, in 1715-16 and again in 1720 he visited
England, and was employed by Bentley in collecting materials
for his projected edition, but he seems to have imbibed few
of that great man's principles : the interval between them,
both in age and station,, almost forbade much sympathy. On
his return home he gradually became suspected of Socinian
tendencies, and it must be feared with too much justice; so
that in the end he was deposed from the pastorate (1730), driven
into exile, and after having been compelled to serve in a position
the least favourable to the cultivation of learning, that of a
military chaplain, he obtained at length (1733) a Professorship
among the Remonstrants at Amsterdam (in succession to the
celebrated Leclerc), and there continued till his death in 1754,
having made his third visit to England in 1746. His ' Pro-

'■ See a eulogistic yet discriminating discussion upon Bengel in Bengel dls
OeUhrter, ein Bildfw unsere Tage, from the eminent" pen of Dr. Nestle, which has
been courteously sent to the editor through the Eev. H. J. White.

214 CRITICAL EDITIONS.

legomena,' first published in 1730, and afterwards, in an altered
form, prefixed to his N. T.^ present a painful image both of
the man and of his circumstances. His restless energy, his
undaunted industry, his violent temper, his love of paradox,
his assertion for himself of perfect freedom of thought, his silly
prejudice against Jesuits and bigots, his enmities, his wrongs,
his ill-requited labours, at once excite our respect and our pity :
while they all help to make his writings a sort of unconscious
autobiography, rather interesting than agreeable. Non sic itur
ad astra, whether morally or intellectually ; yet Wetstein's
services to sacred literature were of no common order. His
philological annotations, wherein the matter and phraseology
of the inspired writers are illustrated by copious — too copious —
quotations from all kinds of authors, classical, Patristic, and
Rabbinical, have proved an inexhaustible storehouse from which
later writers have drawn liberally and sometimes without due
acknowledgement ; but many of the passages ai'e of such a
tenor as (to use Tregelles' very gentle language respecting them)
'only to excite surprise at their being found on the same
page as the text of the New Testament ' (Account of Printed
Text, p. 76). The critical portion of his work, however, is
far more valuable, and in this department Wetstein must be
placed in the very first rank, inferior (if to any) to but one or
two of the highest names. He first cited the manuscripts
under the notation by which they are commonly known, hia
list abeady embracing A-0, 1-112 of the Gospels; A-G,
1-58 of the Acts ; A-H, 1-60 of St. Paul ; A-C, 1-28 of
the Apocalypse ; 1-24 Evangelistaria ; 1-4 of the Apostolos.
Of these Wetstein himself collated about one hundred and
two ^ ; if not as fully or accurately as is now expected, yet with
far greater care than had hitherto been usual : about eleven were
examined for him by other hands. On the versions and early
editions he has likewise bestowed great pains ; and he improved
upon quotations from the Fathers. His text is that of Elzevir
(1633), not very exactly printed^, and immediately below it he

' The opposition of Frey and his other adrersai'ies delayed that opus magnum
for twenty years (N. T., Prolog., vol. i. p. 218).

^ We here reckon separately, as we believe is both usual and convenient,
every distinct portion of the N. T. contained in a manuscript. Thus Codd.
and 69 Evan, will each count for four.

' Errors of Wetstein's text will be found in John xi. 31 ; Acts i. 26 ; xiii. 29

WETSTEIN. 215

placed such readings of his manuscripts as he judged preferable
to those received. The readings thus approved by Wetstein
(which do not amount to five hundred, and those chiefly in the
Apocalypse) were inserted in the text of a Greek Testament
published in London, 1763, 2 vols., by W. Bowyer, the learned
printer, with a collection of critical conjectures annexed, which
were afterwards published separately.

Wetstein's Prolegomena have also been reproduced by J. S.
Semler (Halle, 1764), with good notes and facsimiles of certain
manuscripts, and more recently, in a compressed and modernized
form, by J. A. Lotze (Rotterdam, 1831), a book which neither
for design nor execution can be much praised. The truth is that
both the style and the subject-matter of much that Wetstein
wrote are things of the past. In his earlier edition of his Pro-
legomena (1730) he had spoken of the oldest Greek uncial copies
as they deserve ; he was even disposed to take Cod. A as the
basis of his text. By the time his N. T. was ready, twenty years
later, he had come to include it, with all the older codices of the
original, under a general charge of being conformed to the Latin
version. That such a tendency may be detected in some of the
codices accompanied by a Latin translation, is both possible
in itself, and not inconsistent with their general spirit ; but
he has scattered abroad his imputations capriciously and
almost at random, so as greatly to diminish the weight of his
own decisions. Cod. A, in particular, has been fuUy cleared of
the charge of Latinizing by Woide, in his excellent Prolego-
mena (§ 6). His thorough contempt for that critic prevented
Wetstein from giving adequate attention to Bengel's theory of

{iriKriaav, from the Oxford N. T. 1675), though Wetstein himself remarks this.
He corrects a few obvious misprints of Elzevir 1633, but his note shovys that
he does not intend to read tS in Mark vi. 29. The following seem to be de-
liberate variations from the Elzevir text : Matt. xiii. 15 ; xxi. 41 ; Mark xiv. 64 ;
Luke ii. 22 ; xi. 12 ; xiii. 19 ; i Cor. i. 29 ; v. 11 ; xii. 23 ; xiv. 15 ; Phil. iii. 5 ;
I Tim. iii. 2, 11 (yet not Tit. ii. 2) ; Philem. 7 ; i Pet. i. 3 ; iii. 7. All these
deliberate variations are found in Von Mastricht's edition of 1735, which seems
to have been used by Wetstein as the basis of his text ; and in all of them
(except Matt. xxi. 41 ; Luke xi. 12, and Phil. iii. 6) Fell's text agrees with
Wetstein's. In Matt. xiii. 15 ; Mark xiv. 64 ; i Cor. i. 29 ; v. 11 ; xii. 23 ; xiv.
15 ; Phil. iii. 5 ; i Pet. iii. 7, the Elzevir editions vary. (American Additions
and Corrections, p. 51.) He spells va^apkr uniformly, except in John i. 46, 47.
Beuss (p. 183) adds nine changes made by Wetstein in the text for critical
reasons : Matt. viii. 28 ; Luke xi. 2 ; John vii. 53 — viii. 11 ; Acts v. 36 ; xx. 28 ;
I Tim. iii. 16 (8) ; Apoc. iii. 2 ; x. 4 ; xviii. 17.

2l6 CRITICAL EDITIONS.

families ; indeed he can hardly be said to have rejected a Bcheme
which he scorned to investigate with patience. On the other
hand no portion of his labours is more valuable than the
' Animadversiones et Cautiones ad examen variarum lectionum
N. T. necessariae' (N. T., Tom. ii. pp. 851-74). In this tract
his natural good sense and extensive knowledge of authorities
of every class have gone far to correct that impetuous tempera-
ment which was ever too ready to substitute plausible conjecture
in the room of ascertained facts.

During the twenty years immediately ensuing on the pub-
lication of Wetstein's volumes, little was attempted in the way
of enlarging or improving the domain he had secured for Biblical
science. In England the attention of students was directed, and on
the whole successfully, to the criticism of the Hebrew Scriptures ;
in Germany, the younger (J. D.) Michaelis [1717-91] reigned
supreme, and he seems to have deemed it the highest effort of
scholarship to sit in judgement on the labours of others. Ih
process of time, however, the reseai'ches of John James Griesbach
[1745-1812], a native of Hesse Darmstadt and a pupil of Semler,
and J. A. Ernesti [1707-81] (whose manual, 'Institutio Interpretis
N. T.,' 1761, has not long been superseded), began to attract
general notice. Like Wetstein, he made a literary tour in Eng-
land early in life (1769), and with far more profit ; returning to
Halle as a Professor, he published before he was thirty (1774-5)
his first edition of the N. T., which contained the well-defined
embryo of his future and more elaboi-ate speculations. It wiU
be convenient to reserve the examination of his views until
we have described the investigations of several collators who
unknowingly (and in one instance, no doubt unwillingly)
were busy in gathering stores which he was to turn to his
own use.

10. Christian Frederick Matthaei, a Thuringian [1744-1811],
was appointed, on the recommendation of his tutor Ernesti, to
the Pi-ofessorship of Classical Literature at Moscow: so far as
philology is concerned, he probably merited Bp. Middleton's
praise, as ' the most accurate scholar who ever edited the N. T.'
(Doctrine of the Greek Article, p. 244, 3rd edition.) At Moscow
he found a large number of Greek manuscripts, both Biblical
and Patristic, originally brought from Athos, quite uncollated,

MATTHAEI. 217

and almost entirely unknown in the west of Europe. With
laudable resolution he set himself to examine them, and
gradually formed the scheme of publishing an edition of the
New Testament by the aid of materials so precious and
abundant. All authors that deserve that honourable name may
be presumed to learn not a little, even on the subject they know
best, while preparing an important work for the public eye ; but
Matthaei was as yet ignorant of the first principles of the critical
art ; and beginning thus late, there was much, and that of a very
elementary character, which he never understood at all. When
he commenced writing he had not seen the volumes of Mill or
Wetstein ; and to this significant fact we must impute that
inability which clave to him to the last, of discriminating the
relative age and value of his own or others' codices. The
palaeographical portion of the science, indeed, he gradually
acquired from the study of his documents, and through the
many facsimiles of them he represents in his edition ; but what
can be thought of his judgement, when he persisted in asserting
the intrinsic superiority of Cod. 69 of the Acts to the great
uncials AC (N. T., Tom. xii. p. 222)^1 Hence it results that
Matthaei's text, which of course he moulded on his own views,
must be held in slight esteem : his services as a collator com-
prehend his whole claim (and that no trifling one) to our thankful
regard. To him solely we are indebted for Evan. V ; 237-259 :
Act. 98-107; Paul. 113-124; Apoc. 47-50 ^ (i.e. r); Evst. 47-57;
Apost. 18-20 ; nearly all at Moscow : the whole seventy ^, together

' One other specimen of Matthaei's critical skill will suffice : he is speaking
of his Cod. H, which is our Evst. 50. ' Hie Codex scriptus est Uteris quadratis,
estque eorum omnium, qui adhuc in Europa innotuerunt et vetustissimus et
praestantissimus. Insanus quidem fuerit, qui cum hoc aut Cod. V [p. 144]
comparare, aut aequiparare voluerit Codd. Alexandr. Clar. Germ. Boern. Cant.
[Evan. AD, Paul. ADEG], qui sine uUo dubio pessimfe ex scholiis et Versione
Latina Vulgata interpolati sunt ' (N. T., Tom. ix. p. 254).

^ In using Matthaei's N. T. the following index of manuscripts first collated
by him will be found useful : a = Evan. 259, Act. 98 (a 1), Paul. 113 (a or a 2.),
Apost. 82 (a 3) : B = Evat. 47 : b = Apost. 13 :- c = Act. 99, Paul. 114, Evst. 48 :
d = Evan. 237, Act. 100, Paul. 115 : e = Evan. 238, Apost. 14 : f = Act. 101, Paul.
116, Evst. 49 : g = Evan. 239, Act. 102, Paul. 117 : H = Evst. 50 : h = Act. 103,
Paul. 118 : i = Evan. 240, Paul. 119 : k = Evan. 241, Act. 104, Paul. 120, Apoc.
47 ^ 1 = Evan. 242, Act. 105, Paul. 121, Apoc. 48 : m = Evan. 243, Act. 106, Paul.
122 : n = Evan. 244, Paul. 123 : o = Evan. 245, Apoc. 49 : p = Evan. 246, Apoc.
50 : q = Evan. 247, Paul. 124 ; r = Evan. 248, also Apoc. 50^, Apoc. 90 : s = Evan.
249, Paul. 76 : t = Apoc. 82, Evst. 51 : tz = Apost. 15 : V= V : v = Evan. 250,
Apost. 5: x = Evan. 251, Act. 69, Paul. 74, Apoc. 80 (from Knittel) ; z = Evan.

2l8 CRITICAL EDITIONS.

•with the citations of Scripture in thirty-four manuscripts of
Chrysostom ^, being so fully and accurately collated, that the
reader need not be at a loss whether any particular copy
supports or opposes the reading in the common text. Mat-
thaei's further services in connexion with Cod. G Paul, and
a few others (Act. 69, &c.) have been noticed in their proper
places. To his Greek text was annexed the Latin Vulgate
(the only version, in its present state, he professes to regard,
Tom. xi. p. xii) from the Cod. Demidovianus. The first
volume of this edition appeared in 1782, after it had been
already eight years in preparation : this comprised the Catholic
Epistles. The rest of the work was published at intervals
during the next six years, in eleven more thin parts 8vo, the
whole series being closed by SS. Matthew and Mark in 1788.
Each volume has a Preface, much descriptive matter, and fac-.
similes of manuscripts (twenty-nine in all), the whole being in
complete and almost hopeless disorder, and the general title-page
absurdly long. Hence his critical principles (if such they may
be termed) must be picked up piecemeal ; and it is not very
pleasant to observe the sort of influence which hostile controversy
exercised over his mind and temper. While yet fresh at his
task (1782), anticipating the fair fame his most profitable
researches had so well earned, Matthaei is frank, calm, and
rational: even at a later period J. D. Michaelis is, in his
estimation, the keenest of living judges of codices, and he says
so the rather ' quod ille vir doctissimus multis modis me, qud
de causa ipse ignoro, partim jocosfe, partim seri6, vexavit' (Tom.
ii, 1788, p. xxxi). Bengel, whose sentiments were very dissimilar
from those of the Moscow Professor, ' pro acumine, diligentiS. et
religione sua,' would have arrived at other conclusions, had his
Augsburg codices been better (ibid., p. xxx). But for Griesbach
and his recension-theory no terms of insult are strong enough ;

252: 10 = Evan. 253: 11 = Evan. 254: 12 = Evan. 255: 14 = Evan. 256: 15 = 0,
16= Erst, 66, Apost. 20; 17 = Evan. 258: 18 = Evan. 99: 19 = Evst. 57:
20 = Evan. 89 : f = Evst. 52, Apost. 16 : x = Evst. 53, Apost. 11 ■- ^ = Evst. 54,
Apost. 18 : 01 = Evst. 55, Apost. 19 : Frag. Vet. = part of H : Gp""'. It should
be noted, that in several of these cases different MSS. are included under one
letter : e. g. o = Evst. 48 is a different MS. from c = Act. 99.

^ The copies of Chysostom's homilies on the Gospels freshly collated by this
editor are noted 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, a, i8, 7, S, e, f, ij, 9, A., jx, n, p,<l>:
those on St. Paul's Epistles are noted 1, 2, S, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, a, /3.

MATTHAEI. 219

'risum vel adeo pueris debet ille Halensis criticus,' who never
saw, ' ut credihile est,' a manuscript even of the tenth century
(ibid., p. xxiii), yet presumes to dictate to those who have collated
seventy. The unhappy consequence was, that one who had taken
up this employment in an earnest and candid spirit, possessed
with the simple desire to promote the study of sacred literature,
could devise no fitter commencement for his latest Preface
than this : ' Laborem igitur molestum invidiosum et infamem,
inter convicia ranarum et latratua canum, aut ferretl patientiS.
aut invict^ pertinacii his quindecim annis vel sustinui, vel
utcunque potui perfeci, vel denique et fastidio et taedio, ut
fortasse non nuUi opinantur, deposui et abjeci ' (Tom. i, Praef.
p. 1) : he could find no purer cause for thankfulness, than (what
we might have imagined but a very slight mercy) that he had
never been commended by those ' of whom to be dispraised is no
small praise ; ' or (to use his own more vigorous language) ' quod
nemo scurra . . . nemo denique de grege novorum theologorum,
banc qualemcunque operam meam ausus est ore impuro suo,
laudeque contumeliosS. comprobare.' Matthaei's second edition
in three volumes (destitute of the Latin version and most of the
critical' notes) bears date 1803-7 ^. For some cause, now not
easy to understand, he hardly gave to this second edition the
advantages of his studies during the fifteen years which had
elapsed since he completed his first. We saw his labours
bestowed on the Zittau N. T. in 1801-2 (Evan. 605). On the
last leaf of the third volume of his second edition, writing from
Moscow in May, 1805, he speaks of a book containing collations
of no less than twenty-four manuscripts, partly fresh, partly
corrected, which, when he returned into Kussia, he delivered to
Augustus Schumann, a bookseller at Ronneburg (in Saxe Alten-
burg), to be published in close connexion with his second edition
against the Easter Fair at Leipzig in 1805. Another book
contained extracts from St. Chrysostom with a commentary and
index, to be published at the same time, and both at Schumann's
risk. ' Utrum isti libri jam prodierint necne,' our author adds
pathetically, ' nondum factus sum certior. Certe id vehementer
opto.' But in .1805 evil times were hastening upon Germany,

^ Eeuss (p, 207) calculates that, besides misprints, Matthaei's second and
very inferior edition differs in text from his first in but twenty-four places,
none of them being in the Gospels.

220 CRITICAL EDITIONS.

and so unfortunately for the poor man and for textual students
these collections have disappeared and left no trace behind.

10.'' The next, and a far less considerable contribution to our
knowledge of manuscripts of the N. T., was made by Francis
Karl Alter [1749-1804], a Jesuit, born in Silesia, and Professor
of Greek at Vienna. His plan was novel, and, to those who are
compelled to use his edition (N. T. Graecum, ad Codicem Vin-
dobonensem Graecfe expressum, 8vo, Vienna, 2 torn., 1786-7),
inconvenient to the last degree. Adopting for his standard
a valuable, but not very ancient or remarkable, manuscript in
the Imperial Library (Evan. 218, Act. 65, Paul. 57, Apoc.
83), he prints this copy at full length, retaining even the
V i(j)e>i.KvcrTiK.6v when it is found in his model, but not (as it
would seem) all the itacisms or errors of the scribe, conforming
in such cases to Stephen's edition of 1546. With this text he
collates in separate Appendices twenty-one other manuscripts of
the same great Library, comprising twelve copies of the Gospels
(Codd. N, a fragment, 3, 76, 77, 108, 123, 124, 125, 219, 220, 224,,
225) ; six of the Acts, &c. (3, 43, 63, 64, 66, 67) ; seven of St. Paul
(3, 49, 67-71); three of the Apocalypse (34, 35, 36), and two
Evangelistaria (45, 46). He also gives readings from Wilkins'
Coptic version, four Slavonic codices and one Old Latin (i).
In. employing this ill-digested mass, it is necessary to turn
to a different place for every manuscript to be consulted, and
Alter's silence in any passages must be understood to indi-
cate resemblance to his standard, Evan. 218, and not to the
common text. As this silence is very often clearly due to
the collator's mere oversight, Griesbach set the example of citing
these manuscripts in such cases within marks of parenthesis :
thus '218 (108, 220)' indicates that the reading in question is
certainly found in Cod. 218, and (so far as we may infer ex
Alteri silentio) not improbably in the other two. Most of these
Vienna codices were about the same time examined rather
slightly by Andrew Birch.

11. This eminent person, who afterwards bore successively
the titles of Bishop of LoUand, Falster, and Aarhuus, in the
Lutheran communion established in Denmark, was one of a com-
pany of learned men sent by the liberal care of Christian VII
to examine Biblical manuscripts in various countries. Adler

ALTER, BIRCH. 221

pursued his Oriental studies at Rome and elsewhere ; D. G.
Moldenhawer and 0. G. Tychsen (the famous Orientalist of
Eostock) were sent into Spain in 1783-4 ; Birch travelled on the
same good errand in 1781-3 through Italy and Germany. The
combined results of their investigations were arranged and
published by Birch, whose folio edition of the Four Gospels (also
in 4to) with Stephen's text of 1550 ^, and the various readings
contributed by himself and his associates, full descriptive Pro-
legomena and facsimiles of seven manuscripts (Codd. S, 157
Evan. ; and five in Syriac), appeared at Copenhagen in 1788.
Seven years afterwards (1795) a fire destroyed the Eoyal
Printing-house, the type, paper, and unsold stock of the first
volume, the collations of the rest of the N. T. having very nearly
shared the same fate. These poor fragments were collected by
Birch into two small 8vo volumes, those relating to the Acts and
Epistles in 1798, to the Apocalypse (with facsimiles of Codd.
37, 42) in 1800. In 1801 he revised and re-edited the various
readings of the Gospels, in a form to correspond with those of the
rest of the N. T. Nothing can be better calculated to win
respect and confidence than the whole tone of Birch's several
Prolegomena: he displays at once a proper sense of the diffi-
culties of his task, and a consciousness that he had done his
utmost to conquer them^. It is indeed much to be regretted
that, for some cause he does not wish to explain, he accomplished
but little for Cod. B; many of the manuscripts on his long
list were beyond question examined but very superficially;
yet he was almost the first to open to us the literary treasures
of the Vatican, of Florence, and of Venice. He more or less
inspected the uncials Cod. B, Codd. ST of the Gospels, Cod.
L of the Acts and Epistles. His catalogue of cursives com-
prises Codd. 127-225 of the Gospels ; Codd. 63-7, 70-96 of
the Acts; Codd. 67-71, 77-112 of St. Paul; Codd. 33-4, 37-46

' ' Textui ad Millianum expresso ' says Eeuss (p. 151), which is not quite the
same thing : see p. 203, note 2.

" ' Conscius sum mihi, me omnem et diligentiam et intentionem adhibuisse,
ut haee editio quam emendatissima in manus eruditorum perveniret, utque in
hoc opere, in quo ingenio non fait locus, curae testimonium promererem ; nulla
tameu mihi est fiducia, me omnia, quae exigi possint, peregisae. Vix enim
potest esse ulla tarn perpetua legentis intentio, quae nou obtutu continue fatige-
tur, praesertim in tali genere, quod tam multis, saepe parvis, observationibus
constat.' (Lecturis Editor, p. v. 1788.) Well could I testify to the truth of
these last words !

222 CRITICAL EDITIONS.

of the Apocalypse ; Evangelistaria 35-39 ; Apostolos 7, 8 : in all
191 copies, a few of which were thoroughly collated (e.g. Evan.
S, 127, 131, 157, Evst. 36). Of Adler's labours we have spoken
already; they too are incorporated in Birch's work, and pre-
faced with a short notice (Birch, Proleg. p. Ixxxv) by their
author, a real and modest scholar. Moldenhawer's portion of the
common task was discharged in another spirit. Received at the
Escurial with courtesy and good-will, his colleague Tyschen and
he spent four whole months in turning over a collection of 760
Greek manuscripts, of which only twenty related to the Greek
Testament. They lacked neither leisure, nor opportunity, nor
competent knowledge ; but they were full of dislike for Spain
and its religion, of overweening conceit, and of implicit trust in
Griesbach and his recensions. The whole paper contributed by
Moldenhawer to Birch's Prolegomena (pp. Ixi-lxxxiv) is in sub-
stance very disappointing, while its arrogance is almost
intolerable. What he effected for other portions of the N. T.
I have not been able to trace (226, 228 Evan., which also contain
the Acts and Epistles, are but nominally on Scholz's list for
those books) ; the fire at Copenhagen may probably have
destroyed his notes. Of the Gospels he collated eight codices
(226-233), and four Evangelistaria (40-43), most of them being
dismissed, after a cursory review, with some expression of hearty
contempt. To Evann. 226, 329, 230 alone was he disposed to pay
any attention ; of the rest, whether ' he soon restored them to
their primitive obscurity' (p. Ixxi), or 'bade them sweet and
holy rest among the reliques of Saints and Martyrs ' (p. Ixvii),
he may be understood to say, once for all, ' Omnino nemo, qui
horum librorum rationem ac indolem . . . perspectam habet, ex
lis lectionis varietatem operose eruere aggredietur, nee, si quam
inde conquisiverit, operae pretium fecisse a peritis arbitris
existimabitur' (p.' Ixxi v). It was not thus that Matthaei dealt
with the manuscripts at Moscow.

12. Such were the materials ready for Griesbach's use when
he projected his second and principal edition of the Greek Testa-
ment (vol. i. 1796, vol. ii. 1806). Not that he was backward in
adding to the store of various readings by means of his own
diligence. His 'Symbolae Criticae ^ ' (vol. i. 1785, vol. ii. 1793)

' ' Symtolae Criticae ad Supplendas et corrigendas variarum N. T. lectionum
CoUeotiones. Accedit multorum N. T. Codicum Graecorum descriptio et examen.'

BIRCH, GRIESBACH. 223

contained, together with the readings extracted from Origen,
collations, in whole or part, of many copies of various portions
of the N. T., Latin as well as Greek. Besides inspecting Codd.
AD (Evann.), and carefully examining Cod. C\ he consulted
no less than twenty-six codices (including GL) of the Gospels,
ten (including E) of the Acts, &c., fifteen (including DEH)
of St. Paul, one of the Apocalypse (Cod. 29) twelve Lection-
aries of the Gospels, and two of the Apostolos, far the greater
part of them being deposited in England. It was not, how-
ever, his purpose to exhibit in his N. T. (designed, as it
was, for general use) all the readings he had himself recorded
elsewhere, much less the whole mass accumulated by the
pains of Mill or Wetstein, Matthaei or Birch. The distinctive
end at which he aims is to form such a selection from the
matter their works contain, as to enable the theological student
to decide for himself on the genuineness or corruption of any
given reading, by the aid of principles which he devotes his
best efforts to establish. Between the text (in which departures
from the Elzevir edition of 1624 are generally indicated by being
printed in smaller type^) and the critical notes at the foot of
each page, intervenes a narrow space or inner margin, to receive
those portions of the common text which Griesbach has rejected,
and such variations of his authorities as he judges to be of equal
weight with the received readings which he retains, or but little
inferior to them. These decisions he intimates by several
symbols, not quite so simple as those employed by Bengel,
but conceived in a similar spirit; and he has carried his
system somewhat further in his small or manual edition, pub-
lished at Leipzig in 1805, which may be conceived to represent
his last thoughts with regard to the recension of the Greek text
of the N. T. But though we may trace some slight discrepancies
of opinion between his earliest * and his latest works *, as might

^ Yet Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg., p. xcvii, 7th ed.) states that he only added
two readings (Mark tI. 2, 4) to those given by Wetstein for Cod. C. From Cod.
D too he seems to have taken only one reading, and that erroneously, firt]yeipav,
Acts xiv. 2.

' In the London edition of 1809 aWoi Is printed for the first oEtoi, Mark iv. 18.
Grieshaoh also omits xai in 2 Pet. i. 15 : no manuscript except Cod. 182 (a"") is
known to do so.

' ' Dissertatio critica de Codicibus quatuor Evangeliorum Origenianis,' Halae,
1771 : ' Curae in historiam textus Graeci epistolarum Paulinarum,' Jenae, 1777.

* 'Commentarius Criticus in textum Gr. N. T.,' Part i. 1798 ; Part u. 1811.

224 CRITICAL EDITIONS.

well be looked for in a literary career of forty years, yet the
theory of his youth was maintained, and defended, and temper-
ately applied by Griesbach even to the last. From Bengel and
Semler he had taken up the belief that manuscripts, versions,
and ecclesiastical writers divide themselves, with respect to
the character of their testimony, into races or families. This
principle he strove to reduce to practice by marshalling all his
authorities under their respective heads, and then regarding the
evidence, not of individuals, but of the classes to which they
belong. The advantage of some such arrangement is sufBciently
manifest, if only it could be made to rest on grounds in them-
selves certain, or, at all events, faii'ly probable. We should then
possess some better guide in our choice between conflicting
readings, than the very rough and unsatisfactory process of
counting the nv/mber of witnesses produced on either side. It is
not that such a mode of conducting critical enquiries would not
be very convenient, that Griesbach's theory is universally aban-
doned by modern scholars, but because there is no valid reason
for believing it to be true.

At the onset of his labours, indeed, this acute and candid
enquirer was disposed to divide all extant materials into five
or six different families ; he afterwards limited them to three, the
Alexandrian, the Western, and the Byzantine recensions. The
standard of the Alexandrian text he conceived to be Origen;
who, although his works were written in Palestine, was assumed
to have brought with him into exile copies of Scripture, similar
to those used in his native city. To this family would belong
a few manuscripts of the earliest date, and confessedly of the
highest character, Codd. ABC, Cod. L of the Gospels, the
Egyptian and some lesser versions. The Western recension
would survive in Cod. D of the Gospels and Acts, in the other
ancient copies which contain a Latin translation, in the Old
Latin and Vulgate versions, and m the Latin Fathers. The vast
majority of manuscripts (comprising perhaps nineteen-twentieths
of the whole), together with the larger proportion of versions and
Patristic writings, were grouped into the Byzantine class, as
having prevailed generally in the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
To this last class Griesbach hardly professed to accord as much
weight as to either of the others, nor, if he had done so, would
the result have been materially different. The joint testimony

GRIESBACH. 325

of two classes was, ceteris paribus, always to prevail ; and since
the very few documents which comprise the Alexandrian and
Western recensions seldom agree with the Byzantine even when
at variance with each other, the numerous codices which make
up the thii-d family would thus have about as much share in
fixing the text of Scripture, as the poor citizens whose host
was included in one of Servius TuUius' lower classes possessed
towards counterbalancing the votes of the wealthy few that
composed his first or second^.

Inasmuch as the manuscripts on which our received text was
based must, beyond question, be referred to his Byzantine family,
wide as were the variations of Griesbach's revised text from that
of Elzevir '^, had his theory been pushed to its legitimate conse-
quences, the changes it required would have been greater still.
The very plan of his work, however, seemed to reserve a slight
preference for the received text as such, in cases of doubt and
difficulty ; and this editor, with a calmness and sagacity which
may well be called judicial, was usually disposed to relax his
stem mechanical law when persuaded by reasons founded on
internal probabilities, which (as we cheerfully admit) few men
have been found able to estimate with so much patience and
discrimination. The plain fact is, that while disciples like
Moldenhawer and persons who knew even less than he were
regarding Griesbach's system as self-evidently true, their wiser
master must have had many a misgiving as to the safety of that
imposing structure his raa-e ingenuity had built upon the sand.
The very essence of his theory consisted in there being not two

' The following specimen of a reading, possessing no internal excellence, preferred
or favoured by Griesbach on the slightest evidence, will serve to illustrate the
dangerous tendency of his system, had it been consistently acted upon through-
out. In Matt, xxvii. 4 for deSiov he indicates the mere gloss Sixaiov as equal or
preferable (though in his later manual edition of 1805 he marks it as an inferior
reading), on the authority of the later margin of Cod. B, of Cod. L, the Sahidic
Armenian, and Latin versions and Fathers, and Origen in four places {deSiov
once). He adds the Syriac, but this is an error as regards the Peshitto or
Harkleian ; the Jerusalem may countenance him ; though in such a ease the
testimony of versions is precarious on either side. Here, however, Griesbach
defends SiKaiov against all likelihood, because BL and Origen are Alexandrian,
the Latin versions Western.

* Keuss (p. 198) calculates that in his second edition out of Eeuss' thousand
chosen passages Griesbach stands with the Elzevir text in 648, sides with other
editions in 293, has fifty-nine peculiar to himself. The second differs from the
first edition (1774-5) in about fifty places only.
VOL. II. Q

226 CRITICAL EDITIONS.

distinct families, but three ; the majority deciding in all cases
of dispute. Yet he hardly attempted, certainly neither he nor
any one after him succeeded in the attempt, to separate the
Alexandrian from the Western family, without resorting to
arguments which would prove that there are as many classes as
there are manuscripts of early date. The supposed accordance
of the readings of Origen, so elaborately scrutinized for this
purpose by Griesbach, with Cod. A, on which our editor lays
the greatest stress, has been shown by Archbishop Laurence
(Eemarks on Griesbach's Systematic Classification, 1814) to
be in a high degree imaginary^. It must have been in
anticipation of some such researches, and in a partial know-
ledge of their sure results, that Griesbach was driven to that
violent and most unlikely hypothesis, that Cod. A follows the
Byzantine class of authorities in the Gospels, the Western in the
Acts and Catholic Epistles, and the Alexandrian in St. Paul.

It seems needless to dwell longer on speculations which,
however attractive and once widely received, will scarcely again
find an advocate. Griesbach's text can no longer be regarded
as satisfactory, though it is far less objectionable than such
a system as his would have made it in rash or unskilful hands.
His industry, his moderation, his fairness to opponents, who (like
Matthaei) had shown him little forbearance, we may all imitate
to our profit. His logical acuteness and keen intellectual per-
ception fall to the lot of few ; and though they may have helped
to lead him into error, and have even kept him from retracing
his steps, yet on the whole they were worthily exercised in the
good cause of promoting a knowledge of God's truth, and of
keeping alive, in an evil and unbelieving age, an enlightened
interest in Holy Scripture, and the studies which it serves to
consecrate.

13. Of a widely different order of mind was John Martin
Augustine Scholz [d. 1852], Eoman Catholic Dean of Theology
in the mixed University of Bonn. It would have been well for
the progress of sacred leai-ning and for his own reputation had

' Laurence, in the Appendix to his ' Remarks,' shows that while Cod. A agrees
with Origen against the received text in 154 places, and disagrees with the two
united in 140, it sides with the received text against Origen in no less than 444
passages.

SCHOLZ. 227

the accuracy and ability of this editor borne some proportion to
his zeal and obvious anxiety to be useful. His first essay was
his ' Curae Criticae in historiam texttls Evangeliorum,' in two
dissertations, Heidelberg, 4to, 1820, containing notices of forty-
eight Paris manuscripts (nine of them hitherto unknown) of
which he had fully collated seventeen : the second Dissertation
is devoted to Cod. K . of the Gospels. In 1823 appeared
his ' Biblisch-Kritische Reise,' Leipsic, 8vo, Biblio-Critical
Travels • in France, Switzerland, Italy, Palestine and the
Archipelago, which Schulz laid under contribution for his
improved edition of Griesbach's first volume ^- Scholz's ' N. T.
Graece,' 4to, was published at Leipsic, vol. i, 1830 (Gospels);
vol. ii, 1836.

The accession of fresh materials made known in these works
is almost marvellous : Scholz was the first to indicate Codd. 260
-^69 of the Gospels ; 110-192 of the Acts, &c. ; 125-246 of
St. Paul; 51-89 of the Apocalypse; 51-181 Evangelistaria ;
21-58 Lectionaries of the Apostolos ; in all 616 cursive codices.
His additions to the list of the uncials comprise only the
three fragments of the Gospels W" Y and the Vatican leaves
of N. Of those examined previously by others he paid most
attention to Evan. KX (M also for its synaxaria), and G
(now L) Act.-, Paul. ; he moreover inspected slightly eighty-two
cursive codices of the Gospels after Wetstein, Birch, and the rest ;
collated entire five (Codd. 4, 19, 25, 28, 33), and twelve in the
greater part, adding much to our knowledge of the important
Cod. 22. In the Acts, &c., he inspected twenty-seven of those
known before, partially collated two; in St. Paul he collated
partially two, sjightly twenty -nine; in the Apocalypse sixteen,
cursorily enough it would seem (see Codd. 21-3) : of the
Lectionaries he touched more or less thirteen of the Gospels, four
of the Apostolos. On turning to the 616 codices Scholz placed
on the list for the first time, we find that he collated entire but
thirteen (viz. five of the Gospels, three of the Acts, &c., three of
St. Paul, one each of the Apocalypse and Evangelistaria) : a few
of the rest he examined throughout the greater part ; many in
only a few chaptei's; while some were set down from printed

' David Schulz published at Berlin, 1827, 8vo, a third and much improved
edition of his N. T., vol. i (Gospels'), containing also collations of certain
additional manuscripts, unknown to Griesbach.

Q 2

228 CRITICAL EDITIONS.

Catalogues, whose plenteous errors we have used our best
endeavours to correct in the present volume, so far as the means
were within our reach.

Yet, after making a large deduction from our first impressions
of the amount of labour performed by Scholz, enough and more
than enough would remain to entitle him to our lasting grati-^
tude, if it were possible to place any tolerable reliance on the
correctness of his results. Those who are, however superficially,
acquainted with the nature of such pursuits, will readily believe
that faultless accuracy in representing myriads of minute details
is not to be looked for from the most diligent and careful critic.
Oversights will mar the perfection of the most highly finished
of human efforts ; but if adequate care and pains shall have
been bestowed on detecting them, such blemishes as still linger
unremoved are no real subject of reproach, and do not greatly
lessen the value of the work which contains them. But in the
ease of Scholz's Greek Testament the fair indulgence we must all
hope for is abused beyond the bounds of reason or moderation.
The student who has had much experience of his volumes,
especially if he has ever compared the collations there given
with the original manuscripts, will never dream of resorting to
them for information he can expect to gain elsewhere, or rest
with confidence on a statement of fact merely because Scholz
asserts it. J. Scott Porter (Principles of Textual Criticism,
Belfast, 1848, pp. 263-66) and Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg. c-cii,
7th edition) have dwelt upon his strange blunders, his blind
inconsistencies, and his habitual practice of copying from his
predecessors without investigation and without acknowledge-
ment; so that it is needless for us to repeat or dwell on that
ungracious task ^ ; but it is our duty to put the student once for

' One of Porter's examples is almost amusing. It was Scholz's constant
habit to copy Griesbach's lists of critical authorities (errors, misprints, and all)
■without giTing the reader any warning that they were not the fruit of his own
labours. The note he borrowed from Griesbach on i Tim. iii. 16, contains the
words 'uti docuimus in Symbolis Criticis :' this too Scholz appropriates (Tom.
ii. p. 334, col. 2) so as to claim the ' Symbolae Criticae ' of the Halle Professor as
his own ! See also p. 217, Eyan. 365 ; p. 253, Act. 86, and Tischendorf's notes on
Acts six. 25 ; a Pet. i. 15 (Tf. T., eighth edition). His very text must have been
set up by Griesbach's. Thus, since the latter, by a mere press error, omitted /*e
in 2 Cor. ii. 13, Scholz not only follows him in the omission, but cites in his note
a few cursives in which he had met with ju, a word really absent from no known
copy. In Heb. ix. 5 again, both editors in error prefix t^s to SiJfi/y. Scholz's

SCHOLZ. 229

all on Ms guard against what could not fail to mislead him, and
to express our sorrow that twelve years and more of hard and
persevering toil should, through mere heedlessness, have been
nearly thrown away.

As was natural in a pupil of J. L. Hug of Freyburg (see vol. i.
p. Ill), who had himself tried to build a theory of recensions on
very slender grounds, Dr. Scholz attempted to settle the text of
the N. T. upon principles which must be regarded as a modifica-
tion of those of Griesbach. In his earliest work, like that great
critic, he had been disposed to divide all extant authorities
into five separate classes ; but he soon reduced them to two, the
Alexandrian and the Constantinopolitan. In the Alexandrian
family he included the whole of Griesbach's Western recension,
from which indeed it seems vain to distinguish it by any broad
line of demarcation : to the other family he referred the great
mass of more recent documents which compose Griesbach's third
or Byzantine class ; and to this family he was inclined to give
the preference over the other, as well from the internal excellency
of its readings, as because it represents the uniform text which
had become traditional throughout the Greek Church. That
such a standard, public, and authorized text existed he seems to
have taken for granted without much enquiry. ' Codices qui
hoc nomen [Constantinopolitanum] habent,' he writes, 'parum
inter se dissentiunt. Conferas, quaeso, longfe plerosque quos huie
classi adhaerere dixi, atque lectiones diversas viginti trigintave
in totidem capitibus vix reperies, unde conjicias eos esse accura-
tissimfe descriptos, eorumque antigrapha parum inter se discre-
passe ' (N. T., Proleg., vol. i. § 55). It might have occurred to
one who had spent so many years in studying Greek manu-
scripts, that this marvellous concord between the different
Byzantine witnesses (which is striking enough, no doubt, as we
turn over the pages of his Greek Testament) is after all due to

inaccuracy in the description of manuscripts which he must have had before
him when he was writing is most wearisome to those who have had to trace his
steps, and to verify, or rather to falsify, his statements. He has half filled our
catalogues with duplicates and codices which are not Greek or are not Biblical
at all. After correcting not a few of his misrepresentations of books in the
libraries at Florence, Burgon breaks out at last : ' What else but calamitous is it
to any branch of study that it should have been prosecuted by such an incor-
rigible blunderer, a man so abominably careless as this ? ' {Gvardian, Aug. 27,
1878.)

230

CRITICAL EDITIONS.

nothing so much as to the haste and carelessness of collators.
The more closely the cursive copies of Scripture are examined,
the more does the individual character of each of them become
developed. With certain points of general resemblance, whereby
they are distinguished from the older documents of the Alexan-
drian class, they abound with mutual variations so numerous
and perpetual as to vouch for the independent origin of nearly
all of them, and their exact study has ' swept away at once and
for ever' (Tregelles' ' Account of Printed Text,' p. 180) the fancy
of a standard Constantinopolitan text, and every inference that
had been grounded upon its presumed existence. If (as we
firmly believe) the less ancient codices ought to have their
proper weight and appreciable influence in fixing the true text
of Scripture, our favourable estimate of them must rest on other
arguments than Scholz has urged in their behalf.

Since this editor's system of recensions differed thus widely
from Griesbach's, in suppressing altogether one of his three
classes, and in yielding to the third, which the other slighted,
a decided preference over its surviving rival, it might have been
imagined that the consequences of such discrepancy in theory
would have been strongly marked in their efiects on his text.
That such is not the case, at least to any considerable extent
(especially in his second volume), must be imputed in part to
Griesbach's prudent reserve in carrying out his principles to
extremity, but yet more to Scholz's vacillation and evident
weakness of judgement. In fact, on his last visit to England in
1845, he distributed among Biblical students here a ' Commen-
tatio de virtutibus et vitiis utriusque codicum N, T. familiae,'
that he had just delivered on the occasion of some Encaenia at
Bonn, in which (after various statements that display either
ignorance or inattention respecting the ordinary phenomena of
manuscripts which in a veteran collator is really unaccountable^)
he declares his purpose, chiefly it would seem from considerations
of internal evidence, that if ever it should be his lot to prepare
another edition of the New Testament, 'se plerasque codicum
Alexandrinorum lectiones illas quas in margine interiore textui
editionis suae Alexandrinas dixit, in textum recepturum ' (p. 14).

' Some of these statements are discussed in Scrivener's ' Collation of the Greek
Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels,' Introd. pp: Ixix-lxxi.

LACHMANN. 23I

The text wMch its constructor distrusted, can have but small
telaim on the faith of others.

14. ' Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine, Carolus Lach-
mannus recensuit, Philippus Buttmannus Ph. F. Graecae lectionis
auctoritates apposuit ' is the simple title-page of a work, by one
of the most eminent philologists of his time, the first volume of
which (containing the Gospels) appeared at Berlin (8vo), 1842, the
second and concluding one in 1850, whose boldness and origin-
ality have procured it, as weU for good as for ill, a prominent
place in the history of the sacred text. L^hmann had published
as early as 1831 a small edition containing only the text of the
New Testament, with a list of the readings wherein he differs
from that of Elzevir, preceded by a notice of his plan jiot
exceeding a few lines in length, itself so obscurely worded that
even to those who happened to understand his meaning it must
have read like a riddle whose solution they had been told
beforehand; and referring us for fuller information to what
he strangely considered ' a more convenient place,' a German
periodical of the preceding year's date^. Authors who take
so little pains to explain their fundamental principles of
criticism, especially if (as in the present case) these are novel
and unexpected, can hardly wonder when their drift and purpose
are imperfectly apprehended ; so that a little volume, which we
now learn had cost Lachmann five years of thought and labour,
was confounded, even by the learned, with the mass of common,

1 The following is the whole of this notice, ■which we reprint after Tregelles'
example : ' De ratione et oonsUio hujus editionis loco commodiore expositum est
(Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1830, pp. 817-845). Hie satis erit dixisse,
editorem nusquam judicium suum, sed consuetudinem antiquissimarum orientis
ecclesiarum seoutum esse. Hanc quoties minus constantem fuisse animadvertit,
quantum fieri potuit quae Italorum et Afrorum consensu comprobarentur prae-
tulit : ubi pervagatam omnium auctorum discrepantiam deprehendit, partim
uncis partim in marginibus iudicavit. Quo factum est ut vulgatae et his proxi-
mis duobus saeeulis receptae lectionis ratio haberi non posset. Haec diversi-
tas hie in fine libri adjecta eat, quoniam ea res doctis judicibus necessaria esse
videbatur.' Here we have one of Lachmann's leading peculiarities — his abso-
lute disregard of the received readings — hinted at in an incidental manner :
the influence he was disposed to accord to the Latin versions when his chifef
authorities were at variance is pretty clearly indicated : but no one would guess
that by the ' custom of the oldest Churches of the East ' he intends the few
very ancient codices comprising Griesbach's Alexandrian class, and not the
great mass of authorities, gathered from the Churches of Syria, Asia Minor, and
Constantinople, of which that critic's Byzantine family was made up.

232 CRITICAL EDITIONS.

hasty, and superficial reprints. Nor was the difficulty much
removed on the publication of the first volume of his larger
book. It was then seen, indeed, how clean a sweep he had
made of the great majority of Greek manuscripts usually cited
in critical editions : — in fact he rejects all in a heap excepting
Codd. ABC, the fragments PQTZ (and for some purposes D) of
the Gospels ; DE of the Acts only ; DGH of St. Paul. Yet even
now he treats the scheme of his work as if it were already
familiarly known, and spends his time in discursive controversy
with his opponents and reviewers, whom he chastises with
a heartiness which in this country we imputed to downright
malice, till Tregelles was so good as to instruct us that in Lach-
mann it was but ' a tone of pleasantry,' the horseplay of coarse
German wit (Account of Printed Text, p. 112). The supplement
tary Prolegomena which preface his second volume of 1850 are
certainly more explicit : both from what they teach and from
the practical examples they contain, they have probably helped
others, as well as myself, in gaining a nearer insight into his
whole design.

It seems, then, to have been Lachmann's purpose, discarding
the slightest regard for the textus receptus as such, to endeavour
to bring the sacred text back to the condition in which it existfed
during the fourth century, and this in the first instance by
documentary aid alone, without regarding for the moment
whether the sense produced were probable or improbable, good
or bad; but looking solely to his authorities, and following
them implicitly wheresoever the numerical majority might
carry him. For accomplishing this purpose he possessed but
one Greek copy written as early as the fourth century. Cod. B ;
and of that he not only knew less than has since come to light
(and even this is not quite sufficient), but he did not avail
himself of Bartolocci's papers on Cod. B, to which Scholz had
already drawn attention. His other codices were not of the
fourth century at all, but varying in date from the fifth (ACT)
to the ninth (G) ; and of these few (of C more especially) his
assistant or colleague Buttmann's representation was loose, care-
less, and unsatisfactory. Of the Greek Fathers, the scanty
Greek remains of Irenaeus and the works of Origen are all that
are employed ; but considerable weight is given to the readings
of the Latin version. The Vulgate is printed at length as

LACHMANN. 233

revised, after a fashion, by Lachmann himself, from the Codices
Fuldensis and Amiatinus : the Old Latin manuscripts abc,
together with the Latin versions accompanying the Greek copies
■which he receives ^, are treated as primary authorities : of the
Western Fathers he quotes Cyprian, Hilary of Poictiers, Lucifer
of Cagliari, and in the Apocalypse Primasius also. The Syriac
and Egyptian translations he considers himself excused from
attending to, by reason of his ignorance of their respective
languages.

The consequence of this voluntary poverty where our manu-
script treasures are so abundant, of this deliberate rejection of
the testimony of many hundreds of documents, of various
countries, dates, and characters, may be told in a few words.
Lachmann's text seldom rests on more than four Greek codices,
very often on three, not unfrequently on two ; in Matt. vi. 20 —
viii. 5, and in 165 out of the 405 verses of the Apocalypse, on
but one. It would have been a grievous thing indeed if we
really had no better means of ascertaining the true readings of
the New Testament than are contained in this editor's scanty
roll ; and he who, for the sake of some private theory, shall
presume to shut out from his mind the great mass of information
God's Providence has preserved for our use, will hardly be
thought to have chosen the most hopeful method for bringing
himself or others to the knowledge of the truth.

But supposing, for the sake of argument, that Lachmann had
availed himself to the utmost of the materials he has selected,
and that they were adequate for the purpose of leading him up
to the state of the text as it existed in the fourth century, would
he have made any real advance in the criticism of the sacred
volume ? Is it not quite evident, even from the authorities con-
tained in his notes, that copies in that age varied as widely —
nay even more widely — than they did in later times ? that the
main corruptions and interpolations which perplex the student
in Cod. Bezae and its Latin allies, crept in at a period anterior
to the age of Constantine? From the Preface to his second
volume (1850) it plainly appears (what might, perhaps, have
been gathered by an esoteric pupil from the Preface to his first,

' These are d for Cod. Bezae, e for Cod. Laud. 85, / being Lachmann's nota-
tion for Paul. Cod. D, as_^is for Paul. Cod. E (whose Latin translation is cited
independently), g for Paul. Cod. G.

234 CRITICAL EDITIONS.

pp. V, xxxiii), that he regarded this fourth century text, founded
as it is on documentary evidence alone, as purely provisional ;
as mere subject-matter on which individual conjecture might
advantageously operate (Praef. 1850, p. v). Of the many
examples wherewith he illustrates his principle we must be '
content with producing one, as an ample specimen both of
Lachmann's plan and of his judgement in reducing it to practice.
In Matt, xxvii. 28 for eKbva-avres, which gives a perfectly good
sense, and seems absolutely required by to. tjuK^ria avrov in ver. 31,
BDahc read ivhva-avres, a variation either borrowed from Mark
XV. 17, or more probably a mere error of the pen. Had the
whole range of manuscripts, versions, and Fathers been searched,
no other testimony in favour of evhwavTes could have been
found save Cod. 1 57, ff^ and q of the Old Latin, the Latiu
version of Origen, and a few codices of Chrysostom ^. Against
these we might set a vast company of witnesses, exceeding those
on the opposite side by full a hundred to one ; yet because Cod.
A and the Latin Vulgate alone are on Lachmann's list, he is
compelled by his system to place evhvtravTis in the text as the
reading of his authorities, reserving to himself the privilege of
removing it on the ground of its palpable impropriety : and aU
this because he wishes to keep the ' recensio ' of the text distinct
from the ' emendatio ' of the sense (Praef. 1850, p. vi). Surely
it were a far more reasonable, as well as a more convenient
process, to have reviewed from the first the entire case on both
sides, and if the documentary evidence were not unevenly
balanced, or internal evidence strongly preponderated in one
scale, to place in the text once for all the reading which upon
the whole should appear best suited to the passage, and most
sufficiently established by authority.

But while we cannot accord to Lachmann the praise of wisdom
in his design, or of over-much industry and care in the execution
of it [see Tischendorf, N. T., Proleg. pp. cvii-cxii), yet we
would not dissemble or extenuate the power his edition has
exerted over candid and enquiring minds. Earnest, single-

' We must now except the seventh century corrector of Cod. X called by
Tischendorf C, who actually changes the original reading ckS. into (vS., to be
himself set right by a later hand C. This is one out of many proofs of some-
thing more than an accidental connexion between Codd. N and B at a remote
period. See vol. i. p. 96, and note.

TISCHENDORF. 235

hearted, a true scholar both in spirit and accomplishments, he
has had the merit of restoring the Latin versions to their proper
rank in the criticism of the New Testament, which since the
failure of Bentley's schemes they seem to have partially lost.
No one will hereafter claim for the received text any further
weight than it is entitled to as the representative of the manu-
scripts on which it was constructed: and the principle of
recurring exclusively to a few ancient documents in preference
to the many (so engaging from its very simplicity), which may
be said to have virtually originated with him, has not been
without influence with some who condemn the most strongly his
hasty and one-sided, though consistent, application of it. Lach-
mann died in 1851.

15. ' Novum Testamentum Graece. Ad antiquos testes denuo
recensuit, apparatum criticum omni studio perfectum apposuit,
commentation em isagogicam praetexuit Aenoth. Frid. Const.
Tischendorf, editio octava:' Lipsiae, 1865-1872. This is beyond
question the most full and comprehensive edition of the Greek
Testament existing ; it contains the results of the latest colla-
tions and discoveries, and as copious a body of various readings
as is compatible with the design of adapting it for general use :
though Tischendorf 's notes are not sufficiently minute (as regards
the cursive manuscripts) to supersede the need of perpetually
consulting the labours of preceding critics. His earliest enter-
prise ^ in connexion with Biblical studies was a small edition of
the New Testament (12mo, 1841), completed at Leipzig in 1840,
which, although greatly inferior to his subsequent works, merited
the encouragement which it procured for him, and the praises of
D. Schulz, which he very gratefully acknowledged. Soon after-
wards he set out on his first literary journey : 'quod quidem tam
pauper suscepi,' he ingenuously declares, ' ut pro paenula quam
portabam solvere non possem ; ' and, while busily engaged on
Cod. C, prepared three other editions of the New Testament,
which appeared in 1843 at Paris, aU of them being booksellers'
speculations on which, perhaps, he set no high value ; one
inscribed to Guizot, the Protestant statesman, a second (having

1 In dedicating the third volume of his ' Monumenta sacra inedita ' in 1860 to
the Theological Faculty at Leyden, Tischendorf states that he took to the.se
studies twenty-three years before, that is, at about twenty-two years of age.

236

CRITICAL EDITIONS.

the Greek text placed in a parallel column with the Latin
Vulgate, and somewhat altered to suit it) dedicated to Denys
Affre, the Archbishop of Paris who fell so nobly at the barricades
in June, 1848. His third edition of that year contained the
Greek text of the second edition, without the Latin Vulgate. It
is needless to enlarge upon the history of his travels, sufficiently
described by Tischendorf in the Preface to his seventh edition
(1859) ; it will be enough to state that he was in Italy in 1843
and 1866 ; four times he visited England (1842, 1849, 1855,
1865) ; and thrice went into the East, where his chief discovery
■ — that of the Cod. Sinaiticus — was ultimately made. In 1849
/ came forth his second Leipzig or Sftk edition of the New Testament,
showing a very considerable advance upon that of 1841, though,
in its eai'lier pages more especially, still very defective, and even
as a manual scarce worthy of his rapidly growing fame. The
sixth edition was one stereotyped for Tauchnitz in 1850 (he put
forth another stereotyped edition in 1862), representing the text
of 1849 slightly revised : the seventh, and up to that date by
far the most important, was issued in thirteen parts at Leipsio
during the four years 1856-9. It is indeed a monument of
persevering industry which the world has not often seen sur-
passed : yet it was soon to be thrown into the shade by his
eighth and latest edition, issued in eleven parts, between 1864
and 1872, the text of which is complete, but the Prolegomena, to
our great loss, were never written, by reason of his illness and
death (Dec. 7, 1874) 1.

Yet it may truly be asserted that the reputation of Tischendorf
as a Biblical scholar rests less on his critical editions of the N. T.,
than on the texts of the chief uncial authorities which in rapid
succession he has given to the world. In 1843 was published
the New Testament, in 1845 the Old Testament portion of ' Codex
Ephraemi Syri rescriptus (Cod. C), 2 vols. 4to, in uncial type,
with elaborate Prolegomena, notes, and facsimiles. In 1846
appeared ' Monumenta sacra inedita,' 4to, containing transcripts
of Codd. F»LNW*Y0» of the Gospels, and B of the Apocalypse ;

* Tischendorf left almost no papers behind him. Hence the task of writing
Prolegomena to his eighth edition, gallantly undertaken by two American
scholars, Dr. Caspar Een6 Gregory of Leipzig, and Dr. Ezra Abbot of Cambridge,
TJ. S., but for their own independent researches, might seem to resemble that of
making bricks without straw.

X-l{r4-o X (f'tvuc w, /n.viV/ ivi^^-]i-

TISCHENDORF. 237

the plan and apparatus of this volume and of nearly all that
follow are the same as in the Codex Ephraemi. In 1846 he also
published the Codex Friderico-Augustanus in lithographed fac-
simile throughout, containing the results of his first discovery at
Mount Sinai: in 1847 the Evangelium Palatinum ineditum of
the Old Latin : in 1850 and again in 1854 less splendid but
good and useful editions of the Codex Amiatinus of the Latin
Vulgate. His edition of Codex Claromontanus (D of St. Paul),
1852, was of precisely the same nature as his editions of Cod.
Ephraemi, &c., but his book entitled ' Anecdota sacra et profana,'
1855 (second and enlarged edition in 1861), exhibits a more
miscellaneous character, comprising (together with other matter)
transcripts of 0» of the Gospels, M of St. Paul ; a collation of
Cod. 61 of the Acts being the only cursive copy he seems to have
examined ; notices and facsimiles of Codd. irA tiseh.^ or Evan.
478 of the Gospels, and of the lectionaries tisch.^^ (Evst. 190)
and tisch.^- *'■ (Apost. 71). Next was commenced a new series of
' Monumenta sacra inedita' (projected to consist of nine volumes),
on the same plan as the book of 1846. Much of this series is
devoted to codices of the Septuagint version, to which
Tischendorf paid great attention, and whereof he published four
editions (the latest in 1869) hardly worthy of him ; but vol. i
(1855) contains transcripts of Codd. I, ven^^- (Evst. 175) ; vol. ii
(1857) of Codd. W'K®'^; vol. iii (1860) of Codd. QW^ all of the
Gospels ; vol. iv (1869) was given up to the Septuagint, as vol. vii
would have been to the Wolfenbiittel manuscript of Chrysostom,
of the sixth century ^ ; but Cod. P of the Acts, Epistles, and
Apocalypse comprises a portion of vols, v (1865) and of vi (1869) ;
while vol. viii was to have been devoted to palimpsest fragments
of both Testaments, such as we have described amongst the
Uncials : the Appendix or vol. ix (1870) contains Cod. E of the
Acts, &c. An improved edition of his system of Gospel Harmony
(Synopsis Evangelica, 1851) appeared in 1864, with some fresh
critical matter, a better one in 1871, and the fifth in 1884. His
achievements in regard to Codd. t^ and B we have spoken of in

' Through his haste to publish Cod. E of the Acts, in which design he feared
to be forestalled by a certain Unglishman, Tischendorf postponed to it vols, vii
and viii, which he did not live to resume. Oscar von Gebhardt, now of Berlin,
will complete vol. vii ; Caspar Bend Gregory hopes to do what is possible for
vol. viii.

238 CRITICAL EDITIONS.

their proper places. He published his 'Notitia Cod. Sinaitici' in
1860, his great edition of that manuscript in 1862, with full
notes and Prolegomena ; smaller editions of the New Testament
only in 1863 and 1865 ; ' an Appendix Codd. celeberrimorum
Sinaitici, Vaticani, Alexandrini with facsimiles ' in 1867. His
marvellous yet unsatisfactory edition of Cod. Vaticanus, prepared
under the disadvantages we have described, appeared in 1867 ;
its ' Appendix ' (including Cod. B of the Apocalypse) in 1869 ; his
unhappy ' Responsa ad calumnias Romanas ' in 1870. To this long
and varied catalogue must yet be added exact collations of Codd.
EGHKMUX Gospels, EGHL Acts, FHL of St. Paul, and more,
all made for his editions of the N. T. A poor issue of the
Authorized English Version of the N. T. was put forth in his name
in 1869, being the thousandth volume of Tauchnitz's series.

The consideration of the text of Tischendorf 's several editions
will be touched upon in Chapter X. To the general accuracy
of his collations every one who has followed him over a portion
of his vast field can bear and is bound to bear cheerful testi-
mony. For practical purposes his correctness is quite sufficient,
even though one or two who have accomplished very much less
may have excelled in this respect some at least of his later
works. For the unflinching exertions and persevering toil of
full thirty years Tischendorf was called upon in 1873 to pay
the natural penalty in a stroke of paralysis, which prostrated
his strong frame, and put a sudden end to his most fruitful
studies. He was born at Lengenfeld in the kingdom of Saxony
in 1815 and died in 1874, having nearly completed his sixtieth
year ^.

16. ' The Greek New Testament, edited from ancient autho-
rities ; with the various readings of all the ancient MSS., the
ancient versions, and other ecclesiastical writers (to Eusebius
inclusive) ; together with the Latin version of Jerome, from the
Codex Amiatinus of the sixth century. By Samuel Prideaux
Tregelles, LL.D.' 4to, 1857-1872, pp. 1017. [Appendix by Dr.
Hort, 1879, pp. i-xxxii ; 1018-1069.]

• For further information respecting this indefatigable scholar and his
labours we may refer to a work published at Leipzig in 1862, ' Coustantin
Tischendorf in seiner funfundzwanzigjahrigen schriftstellerischen wirksamkeit.
Literar-historische skizze von Dr. Job. Ernst Volbeding.' I have also seen, by
Dr. Ezra Abbot's courtesy, his paper in the Unitarian Seview, March, 1876.

TREGELLES. 239

The esteemed editor of the work of which the above is the
full title, first became generally known as the author of 'The
Book of Revelation in Greek, edited from ancient authorities ;
with a new English Version,' 1844 : and, in spite of some obvious
blemishes and defects, his attempt was received in the English
Church with the gratitude and respect to which his thorough
earnestness and independent views justly entitled him. He had
arranged in his own mind as early as 1838 the plan of a Greek
Testament, which he announced on the publication of the
Apocalypse, and now set himself vigorously to accomplish. His
fruitless endeavour to collate Cod. B has already been mentioned,
but when he was on the continent in 1845-6, and again in
1849-50, also in 1863, he thoroughly examined all the manuscripts
he could meet with, that fell within the compass of his design.
In 1854 he published a volume full of valuable information, and
intended as a formal exposition of his critical principles, intituled
' An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament.'
In 1856 he re-wi"ote, rather than re-edited, that portion of the
Rev. T. Hartwell Home's well-known ' Introduction to the Criti-
cal Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures ' which relates
to the New Testament, under the title of ' An Introduction to the
Textual Criticism of the New Testament,' &c.^ In 1857 appeared,
for the use of subscribers only, the Gospels of SS. Matthew and
Mark, as the first part of his ' Greek New Testament' (pp. 1-216) ;
early in 1861 the second part, containing SS. Luke and John
(pp. 217-488), with but a few pages of ' Introductory Notice ' in
each. In that year, paralysis, mercurialium, pestis virorwm,
for a while suspended our editor's too assiduous labours : but
he recovered health sufficient to publish the Acts and Catholic
Epistles in 1865, the Epistles of St. Paul down to a Thess. in
1869. Early in 1870, while in the act of revising the concluding

' A pamphlet of thirty-six pages appeared late in 1860, 'Additions to the Fourth
Volume of the Introduction to the Holy Scriptures, ' &c., by S. P. T. Most of this
industrious writer's other publications are not sufficiently connected with the
subject of the present volume to be noticed here, but as throwing light upon the
literary history of Scripture we may mention his edition of the ' Canon Muratori-
anus,' liberally printed for him in 1867 by the Delegates of the Oxford University
Press. Burgon, however, on comparing Ti-egelles' book with the document itself
at Milan, cannot overmuch laud his minute correctness {Guardian, Feb. 5, 1873).
Isaac H. Hall made the same comparison at Milan and confirms Burgon's judge-
ment. The custodian of the Ambrosian Library at Milan, the famous Ceriaui,
had nothing to do with the work or with the lithograph facsimile.

240 CRITICAL EDITIONS.

chapters of the Apocalypse, he was visited by a second and very
severe stroke of his fell disease. The remaining portion of the
Pauliae Epistles was sent out in 1870 as he had himself prepared
it ; the Eevelation (alas ! without the long-desired Prolegomena)
in 1872, as well as the state of Tregelles' papers would enable
his friends S. J. B. Bloxsidge and B. W. Newton to perform
their office. The revered author could contribute nothing save a
message to his subscribers, full of devout thankfulness and calm
reliance on the Divine wisdom. The text of the Apocalypse
differs from that which he arranged in 1844 in about 229 places.

Except Codd. OH, which were published in 1861 (see under
those MSS.), this critic has not edited in full the text of any
document, but his renewed collations of manuscripts are very
extensive: viz. Codd. EGHKMN''KUXZrA 1, 33, 69 of the
Gospels; HL 13, 31, 61 of the Acts; DFL 1, 17, 37 of St. Paul,
1, 14 of the Apocalypse, Am. of the Vulgate. Having followed
Tregelles through the whole of Cod. 69 (Act. 31, Paul. 37,
Apoc. 14), I am able to speak positively of his scrupulous exact-
ness, and in regard to other manuscripts now in England it
will be found that where Tischendorf and Tregelles differ, the
latter is seldom in the wrong. To the versions and Fathers
(especially to Origen and Eusebius) he has devoted great
attention. His volume is a beautiful specimen of typography ^,
and its arrangement is very convenient, particularly his happy
expedient for showing at every open leaf the precise authorities
that are extant at that place.

The peculiarity of Tregelles' system is intimated, rather than
stated, in the title-page of his Greek N. T. It consists in
resorting to ' ancient authorities ' alone in the construction of
his revised text, and in refusing not only to the received text,
but to the great mass of manuscripts also, all voice in deter-
mining the true readings. This scheme, although from the
history he gives of his work (An Account of Printed Text,
pp. 153, &c.), it was apparently devised independently of
Lachmann, is in fact essentially that great . scholar's plan, after
those parts of it are withdrawn which are manifestly indefen-

' As a whole it may be pronounced very accurate as well as beautiful, with
the conspicuous drawback that the Greek accents are so ill represented as to
show either strange ignorance or utter indifference about them on the part of
the person who revised the sheets for the press.

TREGELLES. 24I

sible. Tregellea' 'ancient authorities' are thus reduced to those
manuscripts which, not being Lectionaiies, happen to be written
in uncial characters, with the remarkable exceptions of Codd.
1, 33, 69 of the Gospels, 61 of the Acts, which he admits because
they 'preserve an ancient text.' We shall hereafter enquire
(Chap. X) whether the text of the N. T. can safely be grounded
on a basis so narrow as that of Tregelles.

This truly eminent person, born at Falmouth of a Quaker
family January 30, 1813, received what education he ever got
at Falmouth Classical School (of which I was Master twenty
years later), from 1825 to 1828. At an early age he left the
communion in which he was bred, to join a body called the
Plymouth Brethren, among whom he met with much disquietude
and some mild persecution: his last years were more happily
spent as a humble lay member of the Church of England, a fact
he very earnestly begged me to keep in mind^. The critical
studies he took up as early as 1838, when he was only twenty-
five years old, were the main occupation of his life. The
inconvenient and costly form in which he published his Greek
Testament, brought upon him pecuniary loss, and even trenched
upon the moderate fortune of his true and loving wife. After
several years of deep retirement he died at Plymouth, April 24,
1875 : and whereas his widow, who has since followed him to the
other world, was anxious that his great work should be as far as
possible completed, Dr. Hort has manifested his veneration for
an honoured memory by publishing in 1879 an 'Appendix' to the
Greek New Testament, embracing what materials for Prolego-
mena Tregelles' published writings supplied, and supplementary
corrections to every page of the main work, compiled by the Eev.
A. W. Streane, Fellow of C. C. C, Cambridge, which comprise
a wonderful monument of minute diligence and devotion.

Of Tischendorf and Tregelles, that duumvirate of Biblical
critics, I may be allowed to repeat a few words, extracted from
the Preface to the Greek Testament of 1876, in the series of
' Cambridge Texts : ' ' Eheu quos viros ! natu ferfe aequales, indole
et fama satis dispares, ambo semper in adversum nitentes, ambo
piia laboribus infractos, intra paucos menses mors abripuit
immatura.'

' He gave the same assurance to A. Earle, D.D., Bishop of Marlborough,
assigning as his reason the results of the study of the Greek N. T.

VOL, II. a

242 CRITICAL EDITIONS.

17. 'The New Testament in the original Greek. The text
revised by Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D. [Regius Professor of
Divinity in the University of Cambridge], and Fenton John
Anthony Hort, D.D. [Hulsean Professor of Divinity there].
Vol. I. Cambridge and London, 1881.' ' Introduction and
Appendix,' in a separate volume, by Dr. Hort only, 1881. This
important and comprehensive work, the joint labour of two of the
best scholars of this age, toiling, now separately, now in counsel,
for five and twenty years, was published, the text a few days
earlier than the Revised English Version (May 17, 1881), the
Introduction about four months later. The text, or one almost
identical with it, had been submitted to the Revisers of the N. T.,
and to a few other Biblical students, several years before, so that
the general tenor and spirit of our authors' judgement was known
to many : the second edition of my present work was enriched
by the free permission granted by them to announce their con-
clusions regarding passages which come up for discussion in
Chapter XII, and elsewhere. Drs. Westcott and Hort depart more
widely from the textus receptus than any previous editor had
thought necessary; nor can they be blamed for carrying out
their deliberate convictions, if the reasons they allege shall prove
sufficient to justify them. Those reasons are given at length by
Dr. Hort in his ' Introduction,' a treatise whose merits may be
frankly acknowledged by persons the least disposed to accept
his arguments : never was a cause, good or bad in itself, set off
with higher ability and persuasive power. On the validity of
bis theory we shall have much to say in Chapters X and XII,
to which we here refer once for all. The elegant volume which
exhibits the Greek text contains in its margin many alternative
readings, chiefly recorded in passages wherein a difference of
opinion existed between the two illustrious editors. Words or
passages supposed to be of doubtful authority are included in
brackets ([]), those judged to be probably or certainly spurious
— and their number is ominously large — in double brackets
([[ J). Mark xvi. 9-20 ; John vii. 53 — viii. 11 are banished to the
end of their respective Gospels, as if they did not belong to
them. Finally, quotations from and even slight allusions to the
Old Testament, in great but judicious plenty, are printed in
a kind of uncial letter, to the great benefit of the student.

This notice cannot be left without an expression of deep

WESTCOTT AND HORT, REVISERS. 243

regret upon the loss of Dr. Hort at a comparatively early age.
Much as the author of this work and the editor of this edition
has differed from the views of that distinguished man, the services
which he has rendered in many ways to the cause of sacred
textual criticism cannot here be forgotten or unrecognized.
His assiduity and thoroughness are a pattern to all who come
after him.

18. The text constructed by the English Eevisers in pre-
paration for their Eevised Translation was published in two
forms at Oxford and Cambridge respectively in 1881. The
Oxford edition, under the care of Archdeacon Palmer, incor-
porated in the text the readings adopted by the Eevisers with
the variations at the foot of the Authorized edition of 1611,
of Stephanus' third edition published in 1550, and of the margin
of the Eevised Version. The Cambridge edition, under the care
of Dr. Scrivener, gave the Authorized text with the variations of
the Eevisers mentioned at the foot. Both editions are admir-
ably edited. The number of variations adopted by the Eevisers,
which are generally based lipon the principles advocated by
Westcott and Hort, has been estimated by Dr. Scrivener at
5,337 (Burgon's 'Eevision Eevised,' p. 405). The titles in full of
these two editions are : —

1. The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to
the Text followed in the Authorized Version, together with
the Variations adopted in the Eevised Version. Edited for the
Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, by F. H. A.
Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., L.L.D., Prebendary of Exeter and Vicar
of Hendon. Cambridge, 1881.

2. *H KAINH AIA0HKH. The Greek Testament, with the
Eeadings adopted by the Eevisers of the Authorized Version,
Oxford, at the Clarendon Press, 1881. [Preface by the Editor,
Archdeacon Palmer, D.D.]

B a

CHAPTER VIII.

INTERNAL EVIDENCE.

"ITFE have now described, in some detail, the several species
' ' of external testimony available for the textual criticism
of the New Testament, whether comprising manuscripts of the
original Greek, or ancient translations from it, or citations from
Scripture made by ecclesiastical writers. We have, moreover,
indicated the chief editions wherein all these materials are
recorded for our use, and the principles that have guided their
several editors in applying them to the revision of the text.
One source of information, formerly deemed quite legitimate, has
been designedly passed by. It is now agreed among competent
judges that Conjectural Emendation must never be resorted to,
even in passages of acknowledged difficulty ^ ; the absence of
proof that a reading proposed to be substituted for the common
one is actually supported by some trustworthy document being
of itself a fatal objection to our receiving it^. Those that have

' Dr. Hort (Introd. p. 277) hardly goes so far as this: 'Those,' he says, 'who
propose remedies which cannot possibly avail are not thereby shown to have
been wrong in the supposition that remedies were needed ; and a few have been
perhaps too quickly forgotten.'

' X hope that the change made in the wording of the above sentence from
what stood in the first edition will satisfy my learned and acute critic, Mr. lin-
wood (Remarks on Conjectural Emendations as applied to the New Testament,
1873, p. 9, note) ; although I fear that the difference between us is in substance
as wide as ever. At the same time I would hardly rest the main stress of the
argument where Dr. Roberts does when he says that ' conjectural criticism is
entirely banished from the iield, &e., simply because all sober critics feel that
there is no need for it' (Words of the N. T., p. 24). There are texts, no doubt,
some of those for example which Dr. Westcott and Dr. Hort have branded with
a marginal f in their edition ; e. g. Acts vii. 46 ; xiii. 82 ; xix. 40 ; xxvi. 28 ;
Horn. viii. 2 ; i Cor. xii. 2 (where Eph. ii. 11 might suggest ort itot^) ; i Tim.
vi. 7, and especially in the kindred Epistles, a Pet. iii. 10 ; 12 ; Jude 5 ; 22, 23,
wherein, whether from internal difSoulties or from the actual state of the external

TEXTUAL CANONS. 245

been hazarded aforetime by celebrated scholars, -when but few
codices were known or actually collated, have seldom, very
seldom, been confirmed by subsequent researches : and the time
has now fully come when, in the possession of abundant stores
of variations collected from memorials of almost every age and
country, we are fully authorized in believing that the reading
to which no manuscript, or old version, or primitive Father
has borne witness, however plausible and (for some purposes)
convenient, cannot safely be accepted as genuine or even as
probable ; even though there may still remain a few passages
respecting which we cannot help framing a shrewd suspicion
that the original reading differed from any form in which they
are now presented to us ^.

In no wise less dangerous than bare conjecture destitute of
external evidence, is the device of Lachmann for unsettling by
means of emendation (emendando), without reference to the
balance of conflicting testimony, the very text he had previously
fixed by revision (recensendo) through the means of critical
authorities: in fact the earlier process is but so much trouble
misemployed, if its results are liable to be put aside by

evidence, we should be vei-y glad of more light than our existing authorities will
lend us. What I most urge is the plain fact, that the conjectures, even of able
and accomplished men, have never been such as to approve themselves to any but
their authors, much less to commend themselves to the judgement of scholars as
intuitively true.

' Bentley, the last great critic who paid much regard to conjectural emenda-
tions, promised in his Prospectus of 1720 that 'If the author has anything
to suggest towards a change of the text, not supported by any copies now
extant, he will offer it separate in his Prolegomena.' It is really worth
while to turn over Wm. Bowyer's ' Critical Conjectures and Observations
on the N. T.,' or the summary of them contained in Knappe's N. T. of 1797,
if only to see the utter fruitlessness of the attempt to illustrate Scripture by
ingenious exercise of the imagination. The best (e. g. avva\i^oiJihois Acts i. 4 ;
ttopiciias. for wopveias ibid. XV. 20, 29), no less than the most tasteless and stupid
(e. g. vrjveiuav for vrjareiav Acts xxvii. 9), in the whole collection, are hopelessly
condemned by the deep sUence of a host of authorities which have since come
to light. Nor are Mr. Linwood's additions to the over-copious list likely to
fare much better. Who but himself will think irpin-rj in Luke ii. 2 corrupted
through the intermediate irpimi from npiirtp erci {uU supra p. 6) ; or that tcL
voK\i in Eom. xv. 22 ought to be ctt; ttoWS. (p. 13) ? Add to this, that he gives
up existing readings much too easily, even where his emendations are more
plausible than the foregoing, as when he would adopt &s av for irav in John viii.
44 (p. 6) ; and this is perhaps his best attempt. His worst surely is OC for 0C
(9c(5s) Eom. ix. 5, which could not be endured unless iariv followed os, as it does
in the very passage (Eom. i. 25) which he cites in illustration (p. 13).

246 INTERNAL EVIDENCE.

abstract judgement or individual prejudices. Not that the most
sober and cautious critic would disparage the fair use of internal
evidence, or withhold their proper influence from those reason-
able considerations which in practice cannot, and in speculation
should not, be shut out from every subject on which the mind
seeks to form an intelligent opinion. Whether we will or not,
we unconsciously and almost instinctively adopt that one of two
opposite statements, in themselves pretty eqvxdly attested to,
which we judge the better suited to recognized phenomena,
and to the common course of things. I know of no person
who has aflected to construct a text of the N. T. on diplomatic
grounds exclusively, without paying some regard to the character
of the sense produced ; nor, were the experiment tried, would
any one find it easy to dispense with discretion and the
dictates of good sense : nature would prove too strong for the
dogmas of a wayward theory. ' It is difficult not to indulge in
subjectiveness, at least in some measure,' writes Dr. TregeUes
(Account of Printed Text, p. 109) : and, thus qualified, we may
add that it is one of those difficulties a sane man would not wish
to overcome.

The foregoing remarks may tend to explain the broad dis-
tinction between mere conjectural emendation, which must be
utterly discarded, and that just use of internal testimony which
he is the best critic who most judiciously employs. They so
far resemble each other, as they are both products of the
reasoning faculty exercising itself on the sacred words of Scrip-
ture : they diifer in this essential feature, that the one proceeds
in ignorance or disregard of evidence from without, while the
office of the other has no place unless where external evidence
is evenly, or at any rate not very unevenly, balanced. What
degree of preponderance in favour of one out of several readings,
all of them afibrding some tolerable sense, shall entitle it
to reception as a matter of right ; to what extent canons of sub-
jective criticism may be allowed to eke out the scantiness of
documentary authority ; are points that cannot well be defined
with strict accuracy. Men's decisions respecting them will
always vary according to their temperament and intellectual
habits ; the judgement of the same person (the rather if he be
by constitution a little unstable) will fluctuate from time to
time as to the same evidence brought to bear on the self-same

TEXTUAL CANONS. 247

passage. Though the canons or rules of internal testimony be
themselves grounded either on principles of common sense, or
on certain peculiarities which all may mark in the documents
from which our direct proofs are derived ; yet has it been found
by experience (what indeed we might have looked for before-
hand), that in spite, perhaps in consequence, of their extreme
simplicity, the application of these canons has proved
a searching test of the tact, the sagacity, and the judicial
acumen of aU that handle them. For the other functions of an
editor accuracy and learning, diligence and zeal are sufficient :
but the delicate adjustment of conflicting probabilities calls for
no mean exercise of a critical genius. This innate faculty we
lack in Wetstein, and notably in Scholz ; it was highly
developed in Mill and Bengel, and still more in Griesbach. His
well-known power in this respect is the main cause of our deep
regret for the failure of Bentley's projected work, with all its
faults whether of plan or execution.

Nearly all the following rules of internal evidence, being
founded in the nature of things, are alike applicable to all sub-
jects of literary investigation, though their general principles
may need some modification in the particular instance of the
Greek Testament.

I. Peoclivi Sceiptioni peaestat aedua: the more difficult
the reading the more likely it is to be genuine. It would seem
more probable that the copyist tried to explain an obscure
passage, or to relieve a hard construction, than to make that
perplexed which before was easy: thus in John vii. 39,
Lachmann's addition of bebofj-ivov to ovwc* ?jv Ttvevjxa &yiov is very
improbable, though countenanced by Cod. B and (of course) by
several of the chief versions. We have here Bengel's prime
canon, and although Wetstein questioned it (N. T., vol. i. Proleg.
p. 157), he was himself ultimately obliged to lay down something
nearly to the same effect ^. Yet this excellent rule may easily

' ' vn. Inter duas variantes lectiones, si quae est evij>m'6Tepos aut planior aut
Graecantior, alteri non protinus praeferenda est, sed contra saepius. viii. Lectio
exhibens locutionem minus usitatam, sed alioqui subjectae materiae convenieu-
tem, praeferenda est alteri, quae, cum aeque conveniens sit, tamen phrasim
habet minus insolentem, usuque magis tritam.' Wetstein's whole tract, 'Animad-
versiones et Cautiones ad examen variarum lectionum N. T. necessariae' (N. T.,

248 INTERNAL EVIDENCE.

be applied on a wrong occasion, and is only true ceteris paribus,
where manuscripts or versions lend strong support to the harder
form. ' To force readings into the text merely because they are
difficult, is to adulterate the divine text with human alloy ; it is
to obtrude upon the reader of Scripture the solecisms of faltering
copyists, in the place of the word of God ' (Bp. Chr. Wordsworth,
N. T., vol. i. Preface, p. xii) 1. See Chap. XII on Matt. xxi. 38-31.
Compare also above, Vol. I. i. § 11.

II. That reading out of several is preferable, from which
aU the rest may have been derived, although it could not be
derived from any of them. Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg. p. xlii.
7th edition) might weU say that this would be ' omnium
regularum principium,' if its application were less precarious.
Of his own two examples the former is too weakly vouched for
to be listened to, save by way of illustration. In Matt. xxiv. 38
he^ and Alford would simply read ev rais fjixipais rov Kara-
kXvo-ixov on the very feeble evidence of Cod. L, one uncial Evst.
(13), a e ff'^, the Sahidic version, and Origen (in two places) ;
because the copyists, knowing that the eating and drinking and
marrying took place not in the days of the flood, but before
them (koi ovk eyvatcrav ecos ^Kdev 6 KaTaKXvafios ver. 39), would
strive to evade the difficulty, such as it was, by adopting one of
the several forms found in our copies : rnxipais itpd rov KaranK-j

vol. ii. pp. 851-874) deserves attentive study. See also the 43 Canones Critiei
and their Confirmatio in N. T. of G. D. T. M. D.

' So even Dr. Roberts, whose sympathies on the whole would not be the
same as the Bishop of Lincoln's : ' Of course occasions might occur on which,
from carelessness or oversight, a transcriber would render a sentence obscure or
ungrammatical which was clear and correct in his exemplar ; but it is manifest
that, so far as intentional alteration was concerned, the temptation all lay in
the opposite direction ' (' Words of the New Testament,' p. 7). So again speaks
E. G. Punchard on James iii. 8 in Bp. EUicott's Commentary, ' The supporters
of such curious corrections argue that the less likely is the more so ; and thus
every slip of a copyist, either in grammar or spelling, becomes more sacred in
their eyes than is the Eeoeived text with believers in verbal inspiration.' ■"Sk,
iiiyt' ynViJf'^-^Edmuiui- Becket t ('Should the Eevised New Testament be Authorised ? ' 1882)
writes in so scornful a spirit as to neutralize the effects on a reader's mind of
his native aeuteness and common sense, but he deals well with the argument
' that an improbable reading is more likely right, because nobody would have
invented it.' ' I suppose,' he rejoins, ' an accidental piece of carelessness can
produce an improbable and absurd error in copying as well as a probable one.'
CP. 7.)
^ In his seventh edition, not in his eighth.

TEXTUAL CANONS. 249

or riiMepais rats irpb tov KaraicX., or ^ixepais exeivais vpb rov
Kora/cA.., or fjixepais eKetyaij Tats Trpo 70S KaraxA.., or even rnj^ipais
TOV v&e. In his second example Tischendorf is more fortunate,
unless indeed we choose to refer it rather to Bengel's canon.
James iii. 13 certainly ought to run jxtj b-ivarai, aheX.(j)oi. [j.ov, o-vktj
iXaCas iroLrjcraL, rj aixireXos avKU ; oiire (vel ovbe) akvKW y\vKV Troirjcrai
vbmp, as in Codd. J^ABC, in not less than six good cursives, the
Vulgate and other versions. To soften the ruggedness, of this
construction, some copies prefixed ovrm's to ovre or ovbe, while
others inserted the whole clause ovrcos ovbeixia 777)77) a\vKov kuC
before yXvKv ■noi.fjtrai vbcap. Other fair instances may be seen in
Chap. XII, notes on Luke x. 41, 43 ; Col. ii. 3 ^ In the Septuagint
also the reading of i^ a-vveia-eXdovTas i Mace. xii. 48 appears to be
the origin both of avve\06vTas with A, the uncial 33, and four
cursives at least, and of da-eX.66vTas of the Roman edition and the
mass of cursives.

Ill, 'Brevier lectio, nisi testium vetustorum et gravium
auctoritate penitus destituatur, praeferenda est verbosiori. Li-
brarii enim multo proniores ad addendum fuerunt, quam ad
omittendum ' (Griesbach, N. T., Proleg. p. Ixiv. vol. i). This
canon bears an influential part in the system of Griesbach and
his successors, and by the aid of Cod. B and a few others, has
brought great changes into the text as approved by some critics.
Dr. Green too (Course of Developed Criticism on Text of N. T.)
sometimes carries it to excess in his desire to remove what he
considers accretions. It is so far true, that scribes were no
doubt prone to receive marginal notes into the text which they
were originally designed only to explain or enforce (e. g.

' One other example to illustrate tMs rule, so difficult in its practical use,
may be added from Alford on Mark ii. 22, where the reading xal 6 dtms
i,iT6WvTai KaX ol dcricol (whether the verse end or not in these words) appears to
have been the original form, since 'it fully explains all the others, either as
emendations of construction, or corrections from parallel places.' The reader
may apply this canon, if he pleases, to Aristotle, Ethic, iv. 9, in selecting
between the three different readings bKvrjpoi or vaSpoi or voepol to close the
sentence ov /ir)v ■^\i6wi ye ol toioStoi Souovaiv tTvai, dA\cl /mWov . . . having careful
reference to the context in which it stands : or to the easier case of Kalroiye
and its variations in Acts xvii. 27 : or to Kom. viii. 24, where the first hand of
B and the margin of Cod. 47 (very expressly), by omitting ti «ai', appear to
present the original text.

250 INTERNAL EVIDENCE.

I John V. 7, 8)^; or sought to amplify a brief account from
a fuller narrative of the same event found elsewhere, whether in
the same book (e. g. Act. ix. 5 compared with ch. xxvi. 14), or
in the parallel passage of one of the other synoptical Gospels.
In quotations, also, from the Old Testament the shorter form is
always the more probably correct (ihid.). Circumstances too
will be supplied which were deemed essential for the preservation
of historical truth (e. g. Act. viii. 37), or names of persons and
places may be inserted from the Lectionaries : and to this head
we must refer the graver and more deliberate interpolations so
frequently met with in Cod. D and a few other documents. Yet
it is just as true that words and clauses are sometimes wilfully
omitted for the sake of removing apparent difficulties (e. g. viov
jSapax^ov, Matt, xxiii. 35 in Cod. N and a few others), and that
the negligent loss of whole passages through oiioioriXevTov is
common to manuscripts of every age and character. On the
whole, therefore, the indiscriminate rejection of portions of the
text regarded as supplementary, on the evidence of but a few
authoi'ities, must be viewed with considerable distrust and
suspicion.

rV. That reading of a passage is preferable which best suits
the peculiar style, manner, and habits of thought of an author ;
it being the tendency of copyists to overlook the idiosyncrasies
of the writer. For example, the abrupt energy of St. James'
asyndeta (e. g. ch. i. 27), of which we have just seen a marked
instance, is much concealed by the particles inserted by the
common text (e. g. ch. ii. 4, 13 ; iii. 17; iv. 2 ; v. 6) : St. Luke in
the Acts is fond of omitting ' said ' or ' saith ' after the word
indicating the speaker, though they are duly supplied by recent
scribes (e. g. ch. ii. 38 ; ix. 5 ; xix. 2 ; xxv. 22 ; xxv. 38, 29).
Thus again, in editing Herodotus, an Ionic form is more eligible
than an Attic one equally well attested, while in the Greek
Testament an Alexandrian termination should be chosen under
similar cii'cumstances. Yet even this canon has a double edge :
habit or the love of critical correction will sometimes lead

* ' Though the theory of explanatory interpolations of marginal glosses into
the text of the N. T. has been sometimes carried too far (e. g. by Wassenberg in
" Valcken." Schol. in N. T., Tom. i), yet probably this has been the most fertile
source of error in some MSS. of the Sacred Volume.' (Bp. Chr. Wordsworth,
N. T., on 2 Cor. iii. 3.) Yes, in some MSS.

TEXTUAL CANONS. 25I

the scribe to change the text to his author's more usual
style, as well as to depart from it through inadvertence (see
Acts iv. 17; I Pet. ii. 24): so that we may securely apply
the rule only where the external evidence is not unequally
balanced.

V. Attention must be paid to the genius and usage of each
several authority, in assigning the weight due to it in a parti-
cular instance. Thus the testimony of Cod. B is of the less
influence in omissions, that of Cod. D (Bezae) in additions, inas-
much as the tendency of the former is to abridge, that of the
latter to amplify the sacred text. The value of versions and
ecclesiastical writers also much depends on the degree of care
and critical skill which they display.

Every one of the foregoing rules might be applied itiutatis
Tnutandis to the emendation of the text of any author whose
works have suffered alteration since they left his hands : the
next (so far as it is true) is peculiar to the case of Holy
Scripture.

VI. 'Inter plures unius loci lectiones ea pro suspectS, merito
habetur, quae orthodoxorum dogmatibus manifeste prae ceteris
fa vet' (Griesbach, N.T., Proleg., p. Ixvi. vol. i). I cite this canon
from Griesbach for the sake of annexing Archbishop Magee's
very pertinent corollary : ' from which, at least, it is reasonable
to infer, that whatever readings, in favour of the Orthodox
opinion, may have had his sanction, have not been preferred by
him from any bias in behalf of Orthodoxy ' (Discourses on
Atonement and Sacrifice, vol. iii. p. 212). Alford says that
the rule, ' sound in the main,' does not hold good, when,
'whichever reading is adopted, the orthodox meaning is
legitimate, but the adoption of the stronger orthodox reading is
absolutely incompatible with the heretical meaning, — then it is
probable that such stronger orthodox reading was the original '
(N.T., Proleg., vol. i. p. 83, note 6, 4th edition): instancing Act.
XX. 28, where the weaker reading ttjv eKKXrjo-Cav roC KvpCov would
quite satisfy the orthodox, while the alternative reading rov deov
' would have been certain to be altered by the heretics.' But
in truth there seems no good ground for believing that the rule
is 'sound in the main,' though two or three such instances as

252 INTERNAL EVIDENCE.

I Tim. iii. 16 ' and the insertion of deov in Jude, ver. 4, might
seem to countenance it. We dissent altogether from Griesbach's
statement, ' Scimus enim, lectiones quascunque, etiam manifest6
falsas, dummodo orthodoxorum placitis patrocinarentur, inde
a tertii seculi initiis mordicus defensas seduloque propagatas,
ceteras autem ejusdem loci lectiones, quae dogmati ecclesiastico
nil praesidii afferrent, haereticorum perfidiae attributas temere
fuisse ' (Griesb. ubi supra), if he means that the orthodox
forged those great texts, which, believing them, to be authentic,
it was surely innocent and even incumbent on them to employ "■
The Church of Christ ' inde a tertii seculi initiis ' has had her
faults, many and grievous, but she never did nor shall fail in her
duty as a faithful ' witness and keeper of Holy Writ.' But
while vindicating the copyists of Scripture from all wilful
tamjjering with the text, we need not deny that they, like
others of their craft, preferred that one out of several extant
readings that seemed to give the fullest and most emphatic sense :
hence Davidson would fain account for the addition h Tfjs
crapKos avTov koI «k t&v oa-rimv avTov (which, however, is not
unlikely to be genuine ^) in Eph. v. 30. Since the mediaeval
scribes belonged almost universally to the monastic orders, we
wiU not dispute the truth of Griesbach's rule, ' Lectio prae aliis
sensum pietati (praesertim monasticae) alendae aptum fundens,
suspecta est,' though its scope is doubtless very limited *. Their

' On this passage Canon Liddon justly says, ' The question may stiU perhaps
be asked . . . whether here, as elsewhere, the presumption that copyists were always
anxious to alter the text of the New Testament in theological interests, is not
pressed somewhat excessively' (Bamptou Lectures, 1866, p. 467, note).

' Gi'iesbach's ' etiam manifestb falsas ' can allude only to i John v. 7, 8 ;
yet it is a strong point against the authenticity of that passage that it is not
cited by Greek writers, who did not find it in their copies, but only by the Latins
who did.

^ The clause might have been derived from Gen. ii. 23, yet the evidence
against it is strong and varied (XAB, 17, 67**, Bohair., &c.).

* Alford's only definite example (and that derived from Wetstein, N. T., vol.ii.
p. 11) is found but in a single cursive (4) in Eom. xiv. 17, ov -^dp iariv ^ fiaffiKeta tow
&eov Ppojais Kal irSffts, dWd, BiKaioavvrj Kal dff Krj ff is Kal eipfjvTj. Tregelles (An
Account of Printed Text, p. 222) adds i Cor. vii. 5 ; Act. x. 30 ; Eom. xii. 13 (!)
More to their 'purpose, perhaps, if we desired to help them on, would be the
suspected addition of xal vijarfia in Mark ix. 29, and of the whole verse in
the parallel place Matt. xvii. 21 ; the former being brought into doubt on the
very insufficient authority of Codd. N (by the first hand) B, of the beautiful
Latin copy k from Bobbio, and by reason of the silence of Clement of Alex-
andria : the latter on the evidence of the same Greek manuscripts (A; being

TEXTUAL CANONS. 253

habit of composing and transcribing Homilies has also been
supposed to have led them to give a hortatory form to positive
commands or dogmatic statements {see Vol. I. p. 17), but there is
much weight in Wordsworth's remark, that ' such suppositions as
these have a tendency to destroy the credit of the ancient MSS. ;
and if such surmises were true, those MSS. would hardly be
worth the pains of collating them ' (Tiote on i Cor. xv. 49).

VII. ' Apparent probabilities of erroneous transcription,
permutation of letters, itacism and so forth,' have been
designated by Bp. Ellicott ' paradiplomatic evidence ' (Preface
to the Galatians, p. xvii, first edition), as distinguished from the
' diplomatic ' testimony of codices, versions, &c. This species of
evidence, which can hardly be deemed internal, must have con-
siderable influence in numerous cases, and will be used the most
skilfully by such as have considerable practical acquaintance
with the rough materials of criticism. We have anticipated
what can be laid before inexperienced readers on this topic in
the first chapter of our first volume, when discussing the
sources of various readings ^ : in fact, so far as canons of internal

defective) ■with Cod. 33, both (?) Egyptian, the Curetonian and Jerusalem
Syriae, the Latin ejf^, some forms of the Ethiopio version, and from the
absence of the Eusebian canon, which ought to have referred us to the parallel
place in St. Mark, whereas that verse is assigned to the tenth canon. In the face
of such readings of NB it is hard to understand the grounds of Mr. Darby's vague
suspicion that they ' bear the marks of having been in ecclesiastical hands.'
(N.T., Preface, p, 3.)

' See (6), (7), (17), (18). The uncial characters most liable to be confounded
by scribes (p. 10) are AAA, CC, O0, NH, and less probably TIT. An article in a
foreign classical periodical, written by Professor Cobet, the co-editor of the
Leyden reprint of the N. T. portion of Cod. B, unless regarded as a mere jeu
d'esprit, would serve to prove that the race of conjectural emendators is not so
completely extinct as (before Mr. Liuwood's pamphlet) I had supposed. By a
dexterous interchange of letters of nearly the same form (A for A, 6 for C, I for
T, C for e, K for IC, T for I) this modern Bentley — and he well deserves the
name — suggests for ACTGIOC tS fiey Act. vii. 20 [compare Heb. xi. 23] the
common-place ACKTOC r^ 0eu, from Act. x. 35. Each one of the six necessary
changes Cobet profusely illustrates by examples, and even the reverse substitu-
tion of 5c«T(is for aaruos from Alciphron : but in the absence of all manuscript
authority for the very smallest of these several permutations in Act. vii. 20, he
excites in us no other feeling than a sort of grudging admiration of his misplaced
ingenuity. In the same spirit he suggests HACIONA for IIAeiGNA, Heb. xi. 4 ;
while in i Cor. ii. 4 for iv ireiBois aoipias \6^ois he simply reads iv ireiBoi iro<l>ias, the
a which begins aotpias having become accidentally doubled and \6iois subsequently
added to explain iraBoTs, which he holds to be no Greek word at all : it seems
indeed to be met with nowhere else. Dr. Hort's comment on this learned

254 INTERNAL EVIDENCE.

or of paradiplomatic evidence are at all trustworthy, they
instruct us in the reverse process to that aimed at in Vol. I.
Chap. I ; the latter showing by what means the pure text of
the inspired writings was brought into its present state of
partial corruption, the former promising us some guidance
while we seek to retrace its once downward course back to
the fountain-head of primeval truth ^. To what has been
previously stated in regard to paradiplomatic testimony it
may possibly be worth while to add Griesbach's caution
'lectiones rhythmi fallaciS, facillimfe explicandae nuUius sunt
pretii' (N. T., Proleg. p. Ixvi), a fact whereof 2 Cor. iii. 3
aifords a memorable example. Here what once seemed the
wholly unnatural reading kv -nXa^l Kapbiais crapKivais, being
disparaged by dint of the rhyming termination, is received by
Lachmann in the place of /capSias, on the authority of Codd. AB
(sic) CDEGLP, perhaps a majority of cursive copies (seven
out of Scrivener's twelve, and Wake 13 or Paul. 277) ; to which
add Cod. i^ unknown to Lachmann, and that abject slave of
manuscripts, the Harkleian Syriac. Codd. FK have Kaphias,
with all the other versions. If we attempt to interpret KapUais,
we must either render with Alford, in spite of the order of the
Greek, 'on fleshy tables, [your] hearts:' or with the Revisers
of 1881 ' in tables that are hearts of flesh ; ■* yet surely a-apKivais
as well as XlOCvms must agree with irXa^i. Dr. Hort in mere
despair would almost reject the second ■nXa^i (Introd., Notes,
p. 119).

It has been said that 'when the cause of a various reading
is known, the variation usually disappears^.' This language
may seem extravagant, yet it hardly exaggerates what may be
effected by internal evidence, when it is clear, simple, and
unambiguous. It is, therefore, much to be lamented that this
is seldom the case in practice. Readings that we should uphold
in virtue of one canon, are very frequently (perhaps in a majority
of really doubtful passages) brought into suspicion by means of

trifling is instructive : ' Though it cannot be said that recent attempts in
Holland to revive conjectural criticism for the N. T. have shown much felicity
of suggestion, they cannot be justly condemned on the ground of principle*
(Introd., p. 277).

' Thus Canon I of this chapter includes (12\ (19) : Canon III includes (2),
(3), (4), (8), (9), (10) ; while (13) comes under Canon IV ; (20) under Canon VI.

» 'Canon Criticus ' xxiv, N. T., by G. D. T. M. D., p. 12, 1735.

TEXTUAL CANONS. 255

another; yet they shall each of them be perfectly sound and
reasonable in their proper sphere. An instance in point is
Matt. V. 22, where the external evidence is divided. Codd. t^B
(in A secundd munu), 48, 198, 583, 587, Origen twice, the
Ethiopic and Vulgate, omit dKrj after was o 6pyi^6}X€vos t(3
dSeXc^u avTov, Jerome fairly stating that it is ' in quibusdam
codicibus,' not ' in veris,' which may be supposed to be Origen's
MSS., and therefore removing it from his revised Latin
version. It is found, however, in all other extant copies
(including SDEKLMSUVA (primd manu) U, most cursives, all
the Syriac (the Peshitto inserting, not a Syriac equivalent, but
the Greek word ehrj) and Old Latin copies, the Bohairic,
Armenian, and Gothic versions), in Eusebius, in many Greek
Fathers, in the Latin Fathers from Irenaeus downwards'-, and
even in the Old Latin Version of Origen himself ; the later
authorities uniting with Codd. SD and their associates against
the two oldest manuscripts extant. Under such circum-
stances the suggestions of internal evidence would be precious
indeed, were not that just as equivocal as diplomatic proof.
' Griesbach and Meyer/ says Dean Alford, ' hold it to have been
expunged from motives of moral rigorism : — De Wette to have
been inserted to soften the apparent rigour of the precept ^.'
Our sixth Canon is here opposed to our first ^ The important
yet precarious and strictly auxiliary nature of rules of internal
evidence will not now escape the attentive student ; he may
find them exemplified very slightly and imperfectly in the
twelfth Chapter of this volume, but more fully by recent
critical editors of the Greek Testament ; except perhaps by
Tregelles, who usually passes them by in silence, though to

^ Dean Burgon cites (Kevisiou Kevised, pp. 359, 360) ' no less than thirty
ancient ■witnesses.'

" ' The precept, if we omit the phrase, is in striking harmony with the at
first sight sharp, extreme, almost paradoxical character of various other pre-
cepts of the ' Sermon on the Mount.' MUligan, Words of the N. T., p. 111.

' Very similar in point of moral feeling is the variation between bKiyomaTiav,
the gentler, intrinsically perhaps the more probable, and atnaTiav, the more
emphatic term, in Matt. xvii. 20. Both must have been ciirrent in the second
century, the former having the support of Codd. KB, 13, 22, 33, 124, 346 \hiai
69], the Curetonian Syriac (and that too against Cod. D), both Egyptian, the
Armenian and Ethiopic versions, Origen, Chrysostom (very expressly, although
his manuscripts vary), John Damascene, but of the Latins Hilary alone. All
the rest, including Codd. CD, the Peshitto Syriac, and the Latins among first
class witnesses, maintain &,m<!Tiav of the common text.

256 INTERNAL EVIDENCE.

some extent they influence his decisions ; by Lachmann, in the
formation of whose provisional text they have had no share ; and
by Dean Burgon, who held that ' we must resolutely maintain,
that External Evidence must after all be our best, our only safe
guide ' (The Eevision Revised, p. 19) ^- We will close this
investigation by citing a few of those crisp little periods (con-
ceived in the same spirit as our own remarks) wherewith
Davidson is wont to inform and sometimes perhaps to amuse
his admirers :

' Eeadings must be judged on internal grounds. One can hardly
avoid doing so. It is natural and ahnost unavoidable. It must be
admitted indeed that the choice of readings on internal evidence is liable
to abuse. Arbitrary caprice may characterize it. It may degenerate
into simple subjectivity. But though the temptation to misapply it be
great, it must not be laid aside. . . . While allowing superior weight to
the external sources of evidence, we feel the pressing necessity of the
subjective. Here, as in other instances, the objective and subjective
should accompany and modify one another. They cannot be rightly
separated.' (Biblical Criticism, vol. ii. p. 374, 1852.)

• Perhaps I may refer to my ' Textual Guide,' p. 120. The utmost caution
should be employed in the use of this kind of evidence : perhaps nowhere else
do authorities differ so much. — Ed.

CHAPTEE IX.

HISTORY OF THE TEXT.

A ^ adequate discussion of the subject of the present chapter
■^ would need a treatise by itself, and has been the single
theme of several elaborate works. We shall here limit ourselves
to the examination of those more prominent topics, a clear
understanding of which is essential for the establishment of
trustworthy principles in the application of external evidence to
the correction of the text of the New Testament.

1. It was stated at the commencement of this volume that
the autographs of the sacred writers 'perished utterly in the
very infancy of Christian history:' nor can any other conclusion
be safely drawn from the general silence of the earliest Fathers,
and from their constant habit of appealing to 'ancient and
approved copies^,' when a reference to the originals, if extant,
would have put an end to all controversy on the subject of
various readings. Dismissing one passage in the genuine
Epistles of Ignatius (d. 107), which has no real connexion with
the matter^, the only allusion to the autographs of Scripture
met with in the primitive ages is the well-known declaration of

' E. g. Irenaeus, Contra Haereses, v. 30. 1, for wMeh see below, p. 261 : the
early date renders this testimony most weighty.

' In deference to Lardner and others, who have supposed that Ignatius refers
to the sacred autographs, we subjoin the sentence in dispute, 'ewei iJKovaci ra/aiv
XeyovroiVj OTt k&v fir) hv toTs dpxaiois euptu, kv tw evayyeXicp ov irtffTeijQj' Kal \eyovT6s
fiov avToTsj OTL yeypanratf djTeitpi$-qa6,v fioi, otl TrpdKeirat. 'C/xol 5^ dpxeid eariv
'Iriffovs Xpiaris K. r. A. (Ad Philadelph. c. 8.) On account of dpxeia in the suc-
ceeding clause, dpx"0's bas been suggested as a substitute for the manuscript
reading dpxaiois, and so the interpolators of the genuine Epistle have actually
written. But without denying that a play on the words was designed between
dpxaiois and dpxeia, both copies of the Old Latin version maintain the distinction
made in the Medicean Greek (' si non in veteribus invenio ' and ' Mihi autem
principium est Jesus Christus '), and any difficulty as to the sense lies not in

VOL. II. 8

258 HISTORY OF THE TEXT.

TertuUian (fl. 200) : ' Percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas, apud quas
ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesident, apud
quas ipsae Authenticae Literae eorum recitantur, sonantes vocem,
et repraesentantes faciem uniuscujusque. Proxime est tibi Achaia,
habes Corinthum. Si non longfe es a Macedonia., babes Pbilippos,
babes Thessalonicenses. Si potes in Asiam tendere, babes
Epbesum. Si autem Italiae adjaces, babes Romam . . .' (De
Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 36.) Attempts bave been made,
indeed, and tbat by eminent writers, to reduce tbe term ' Authen-
ticae Literae' so as to mean nothing more than 'genuine,
unadulterated Epistles,' or even the authentic Greek as opposed
to the Latin translation^. It seems enough to reply with
Ernesti, that any such non-natural sense is absolutely excluded
by the word ' ipsae,' which would be utterly absurd, if 'genuine'
only were intended (Institutes, Pt. iii. Ch. ii. 3) ^ : yet the
African TertuUian was too little likely to be well informed on
this subject, to entitle his rhetorical statement to any real
attention ^- We need not try to explain away bis obvious
meaning, but we may fairly demur to the evidence of this
honest, but impetuous and wrong-headed man. We have no
faith in the continued existence of autographs which are vouched

OLfix'^'^ois but in ■npoKfi.Tai. Chevalller's translation of the passage is perfectly
intelligible, ' Becaiise t have heard some say, XJnless I find it in the ancient
•writings, I will not believe in the Gospel. And when I said to them, " It is written
[in the Gospel]," they answered me, " It is found written before [in the Law]." '
Gainsayers set the first covenant in opposition to the second and better one.

^ Thus Dr. Westcott understands the term, citing from TertuUian, De Mono-
gamia, xi: ' sciamus planS non sic esse in Graeco authentico.' Dean Burgon
refers us to Kouth's ' Opuscula,' vol. i. pp. 151 and 206.

' Compare too Jerome's expression ' ipsa authentica ' (Comment, in Epist. ad
Titum), when speaking of the autographs of Origen's Hexapla :' below, p. 263,

^ The view I take is Coleridge's (Table Talk, p. 89, 2nd ed.). 'I beg.
Tertullian's pardon ; but among his many bfavuras, he says something about
St. Paul's autograph. Origeu expressly declares the reverse ;' referring, I sup-
pose, to the passage cited beloW, p. 263. Bp. Kaye, the very excellence of whose
character almost unfitted him for entering into the spirit of TertuUian, observes :
'Since the whole passage is evidently nothing more than a declamatory mode of
stating the weight which he attached to the authority of the Apostolic Churches ;
to infer from it that the very chairs in which the Apostles sat, or that the very
Epistles which they wrote, then actually existed at Corinth, Ephesus, Eome, &c.,
would be only to betray a total ignorance of Tertullian's style ' (Kaye's ' Ecclesias-
tical History . . . illustrated from the writings of TertuUian,' p. 313, 2nd ed.). Just
so : the autographs were no more in those cities than the chairs were : but it
suited the purpose of the moment to suppose that they were extant ; and, knawmg
nothing to the contrary, he boldly sends the reader in search of them.

THE SACRED AUTOGRAPHS. 259

for on no better authority than the real or apparent exigency of
his argument ^.

2. Besides the undesigned and, to a great extent, unavoidable
differences subsisting between manuscripts of the New Testa-
ment within a century of its being written, the wilful corruptions
introduced by heretics soon became a cause of loud complaint in
the primitive ages of the Church^. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth,
addressing the Church of Rome and Soter its Bishop (a. d. 168-
176), complains that even his own letters had been tampered
with : /cat ToijTas 01 rod Sia^oXou airocTToXoi, ^i^avlcov ■yeyijj.iKav, h jxev
e^aipovvTsi, h be Trpoa-TiOevTes' oh to oval Keirai : adding, however,
the far graver offence, ov davixaa-Tov apa el /cat t&v KvpiaK&v pahovp-
yrja-ai rtz'es e-ntfie^\.r]VTai ypacjj&v (Euseb., Eccl. Hist., iv. 23),
where at KvpiaKoi ypa^al, can be none other than the Holy
Scriptures. Nor was the evil new in the age of Dionysius. Not
to mention Asclepiades, or Theodotus, or Hermophylus, or Apol-
lonides, who all under the excuse of correcting the sacred text
corrupted it ^, or the Gnostics Basihdes (a.t>. 130 1) and Valentinus
(a. d. 150 ?) who published additions to the sacred text which
were avowedly of their own composition, Marcion of Pontus, the

^ I do not observe, as some have thought, that Eusebius (Hist. Eeel. v. 10)
intimates that the copy of St. Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew letters, left by
St. Bartholomew in India, was the Evangelist's autograph ; and the fancy that
St. Mark wrote with his own hand the Latin fragments now at Venice (for.)
is worthy of serious notice. The statement twice made in the ' Chronicon
Pasohale,' of Alexandria, compiled in the seventh century, but full of ancient
fragments, that &afl TpiTtj was the true reading of John xix. 14 ' xaSiis ri dicpiPrj
PtP\ia irepUx^t, aiiTo re to iStSx^tpov tov evayyeXiffTOv onep f^^xP^ ''ov vvv
iTe<pvKaH:Tai x^P^"^^ ®€0v iv ry fcpeaiajy AyiajraTri ixttX-qcrii} koX iiT& tuiv
maTuiv iiciTae irpoaKwetTai ' (Dindorf, Chron. Pasch., pp. 11 and 411), is simply in-
credible. Isaac Casaubon, however, a most unimpeachable witness, says that
this passage, and another which he cites, were found by himself in a fine frag-
ment of the Paschal treatise of ' Peter Bp. of Alexandria and martyr' [d. 811],
which he got from Andrew Bamarius, a Greek merchant or calligrapher (Patti-
son, Life of Is. Casaubon, p. 38). Casaubon adds to the assertion of Peter
' Hec ille. Ego non ignore quid adversua hanc sententiam possit disputari : de
quo judicium esto eruditorum ' ( Exereit. in Annal. Eccles. pp. 464, 670, London,
1614).

' ' I have no doubt,' says Tischendorf, ' that in the very earliest ages after
our Holy Scriptures were written, and before the authority of the Church pro-
tected them, wilful alterations, and especially additions, were made in them,'
English N. T., 1869, Introd. p. xv.

' Caius (175-200) in Eouth's ' Eeliquiae,' ii. 125, quoted in Burgon's ' Revision
Eevised,' p. 323;

S 2

26o HISTORY OF THE TEXT.

areh-heretic of that period, coining to Kome on the death of its
Bishop Hyginus (A. D. 142) ^, brought with him that mutilated and
falsified copy of tl^e New Testament, against which the Fathers
of the second century and later exerted all their powers, and
whose general contents are known to us chiefly through the
writings of TertuUian and subsequently of Epiphanius. It can
hardly be said that Marcion deserves very particular mention in
relating the history of the sacred text ^. Some of the variations
from the common readings which his opponents detected were
doubtless taken from manuscripts in circulation at the time, and,
being adopted through no private preferences of his own, are
justly available for critical purposes. Thus in i Thess. ii. 15,
TertuUian, who saw only roiis Trpoc^Tjraj in his own copies, objects
to Marcion's reading rovy ibiovs :7Tpo(f)riTas ('licet suos adjectio sit
haeretici '), although Ibwvs stands in the received text, in Evann.
KL (DE in later hands) and all cursives except eight, in the
Gothic and both (?) Syriac versions, in Chrysostom, Theodoret,
and John Damascenus. Here the heretic's testimony is useful in
showing the high antiquity of ihiovs, even though NABDEFGP,
eight cursives, Origen thrice, the Vulgate, Armenian, Ethiopic,
and all three Egyptian versions, join with Lachmann, Tischen-
dorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort in rejecting it, some of them
perhaps in compliance with TertuUian' s decision. In similar
instances the evidence of Marcion, as to matters of fact to which
he could attach no kind of importance, is well worth recording ^ :
but where on the contrary the dogmas of his own miserable
system are touched, or no codices or other witnesses countenance
his changes (as is perpetually the case in his edition of St. Luke,
the only Gospel — and that maimed or interpolated from the
others — he seems to have acknowledged at all), his blasphemous
extravagance may very well be forgotten. In such cases he

' 'Necdum quoque Marcion Ponticus de Ponto emersisset, eujus magister
Cerdon sub Hygino tunc episcopo, qui in Urbe nouus fuit, Eomam venit : quem
Marcion secutus. . .' Cyprian., Epist. 74. Cf. Euseb., Eecl. Hist., iv. 10, 11.

" Dean Burgon attributes more importance to Marcion's mutilations. See e. g.
' The Revision Revised,' pp. S4-S5.

' In I Cor. X. 9 Marcion seems to uphold the true reading against the
judgement of Epiphanius : 6 Si ixapx'mv avrl toS kv x" Inoirjaev. Consult also
Bp. Lightfoot's note (Epistle to, the Colossians, p. 336, n. 1) on Heraoleon's
variation of irei/re for tf in John ii. 20. ' There is no reason to think,' he says,
' that Heraeleon falsified the text here ; he appears to have found this various
reading already in his copy.'

EARLY CORRUPTION. 261

does not so much as profess to follow anything more respectable
than the capricious devices of his misguided fancy.

3. Nothing throws so strong a light on the real state of
the text in the latter half of the second century as the single
notice of Irenaeus (fl. 178) on Apoc. xiii. 18. This eminent
person, the glory of the Western Church in his own age, whose
five books against Heresies (though chiefly extant but in a bald
old Latin version) are among the most precious reliques of
Christian antiquity, had been privileged in his youth to enjoy
the friendly intercourse of his master Polycarp, who himself had
conversed familiarly with St. John and others that had seen the
Lord (Euseb., Eccl. Hist., v. 20). Yet even Irenaeus, though
removed but by one stage from the very Apostles, possessed (if
we except a bare tradition) no other means of settling discordant
readings than are now open to ourselves ; namely, to search out
the best copies and exercise the judgement on their contents.
His locus dassicus must needs be cited in full, the Latin through-
out, the Greek in such portions as survive. The question is
whether St. John wrote xf^' (666), or x''^' (616).

' Hie autem sic se habentibus, et in omnibus antiquis et probatissimis
et veteribus scripturis numero boc posito, et testimonium perhibentibus
his qui facie ad faciem Johannem viderunt (tovtwv hk ovras ixovraiv, Ka\ h
7ra(rt Se toIs anovSaiois Ka\ dp^aiots dvTLypdcjyois tov dpidjxov tovtov KSLpevoVj Koi
fiaprvpovvT(oi> avT&u eK^ivau Tcoy Kar oyjnv tov 'ladvvrjv ecopaKOTaVj kol tov Xoyov

^L^dtTKOVTOS Tjp.ds OTL 6 dpiQfXOS TOV OVOpaTOS TOV 6t]pL0V KUTCl TTjV TUtV 'GXXjJfCDV

^rj<pov Sid Tav iv avTa ypappdTmv [E/i^aii/EratJ), et ratione docente nos quo-
niam numerus nominis bestiae, secundum Graecorum oomputationem, per
literas quae in eo sunt sexcentos babebit et sexaginta et sex : ignoro
quomodo erraverunt quidam sequentes idiotismum et medium frustrantes
numerum nominis, quinquaginta numeros deducentes, pro sex decadis
unam decadem volentes esse (ovk ol^a irS>s iai^aKriadv Tivet inaKoXovSfia-avTes
IdiOiTLa'pS Koi Toi' peaov rjOeTt^a-av dpiBphv tov ovopaTOs, v yjrrjcjiio-pa v(pe'K6vTfs

KoX dvTL tSdv t^ beKdbtov piav deKo^a ^ovXopevot, elvai). Hoc autem arbitror
scriptorum peccatum fuisse, ut solet fieri, quoniam et per literas nunieri
ponuntur, facile literam Graecam quae sexaginta enuntiat numerum, in
iota Graecorum literam expansam. . . . Sed his quidem qui simpliciter
et sine malitia hoc fecerunt, arbitramur veniam dari a Deo.' (Contra
Haeres. v. 30. 1 : Harvey, vol. ii. pp. 406-7.)

Here we obtain at once the authority of Irenaeus for receiving
the Apocalypse as the work of St. John ; we discern the living;
interest its contents had for the Christians of the second century,
even up to the traditional preservation of its minutest readings ;

262 HISTORY OF THE TEXT.

we recognize the fact that numbers were then represented by
letters ' ; and the far more important one that the original auto-
graph of the Apocalypse was already so completely lost, that
a thought of it never entered the mind of the writer, though the
book had not been composed one hundred yeai'S, perhaps not
more than seventy ^.

4. Clement of Alexandria is the next writer who claims our
attention (fl. 194). Though his works abound with citations
from Scripture, on the whole not too carefully made (' in addu-
cendis N. T. locis creber est et castus,' is rather too high praise,
Mill, Proleg. § 627), the most has not yet been made of the
information he supplies. He too complains of those who tamper
with (or metaphrase) the Gospels for their own sinister ends, and
affords us one specimen of their evil diligence^- His pupil
Origen's [185-253] is the highest name among the critics and
expositors of the early Church ; he is perpetually engaged in the
discussion of various readings of the New Testament, and
employs language in describing the then existing state of the
text, which would be deemed strong if appHed even to its present

' See Chap. XI on Acts xxvii. 37.

' Irenaeus' anxiety that his own works should be kept free from corruption,
and the value attached by him to the labours of the corrector, are plainly seen
in a remarkable subscription preserved by Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. v. 20), which
illustrates what has been said above, 'Opxi^ai at tov lieraypa^S/ifvov rd ^ifiXiov
rovTOj icaTct, tov Hvpiov ^/jloiv iijaov XP^^"^^^! 'f'^' xarct ttjs evBS^ov irapovffias avTov, ^s
epXfrai Kptvm i,a)i'Tos Koi vexpovs, Iva ivTiPdWr/s b ixCTiypiipai, Kal KaropSiiaris airi
tiphs t6 avTiypa^ov toGto, oOtv fieTe-ypajftu firi^tekSts, Kal t^v opKov tovtov oftoias
ficTaypaipjiSj Kal B-qans Iv Tip dvTiypd(pw. Here the copyist (5 fieTaypact>6fjievos) is
assumed to be the same person as the reviser or corrector. Mr. Linwood also
(uM supra, p. 11) illustrates from Martial (Lib. vii. Epigram, x) the reader's
natural wish to possess an author's original manuscript rather than a less
perfect copy : Qui vis archetypas habere nugas. A still stronger illustration
of the passage in Irenaeus (v. 30) is Linwood's citation of a well-known passage
in Aulus Gellius, a contemporary of that Father, wherein ho discusses with
Higinus the corrupt variation amaro for amaror in Virgil, Geor. ii. 2i7 (Noetes
Atticae, Lib. i. cap. 21).

^ MaKapioi, <pt]<jiv, ol SeSiay/tevot ivfitev SiKaioaiyrjs, on airol viol ®eov K\ri9i)-
ffovTaf jj, ujs Tives Twv ii^TariOkvTOJV rh Cvayye\ia, Maadpioi, cp-qaiv, ol Sedioryt^evoi
vtt6 T7J9 SittatotrijVTjs, ort aiirol ecTovTat TcXeioi' Kai, piaK&pioi ol SiSiojyiiivoi feVewa epLOV,
on i^ovai t6ttov otiov ov SiaxBriaovTai (Stromata, iv. 6). Tregelles (Home, p. 39,
note 2) pertinently remarks that Clement, in the very act of censuring others,
subjoins the close of Matt. v. 9 to v. 10, and elsewhere himself ventures on
liberties no less extravagant, as when he thus quotes Matt. xix. 24 (or Luke
xviii. 25) : Truareov ovv iroW^ pxiWov ttJ yptup^ Kiyoiari, Qdrrov tcdiiTjKov 5iA
TpvirrifiaTos PeKovrjs SieKeCaeaSaif ij nXovaiov tpt\oao(^Hv (Stromata, ii. 6).

SECOND CENTURY. 263

condition, after the changes which sixteen more centuries must
needs have produced. His statements are familiar enough to
Biblical enquirers, but, though often repeated, cannot be rightly
omitted here. Seldom have such warmth of fancy and so bold
a gi-asp of mind been united with the life-long patient industry
which procured for this famous man the honourable appellation
of Adamantius. Respecting the sacred autographs, their fate
or their continued existence, he seems to have had no information,
and to have entertained no curiosity : they had simply passed by
and were out of reach. Had it not been for the diversities of
copies in all the Gospels on other points (he writes) — koL d jxev
fj-T). Kai Trept aAXcoi; ■jroXXdiz' bM(p(iiv[a t]V irpds aWrjXa t&v avTiypa<pu>v
— ^he should not have ventured to object to the authenticity of
a certain passage (Matt. xix. 19) on internal grounds: vwl 8e
hr\X.ov6Ti 'noXkr] ykyovtv fj t&v avTiypa^uiv hia^opa, etre wno padvfJ,Cas
TivSiv ypa(f>i(x>v, etre avro roA/xrjs tiv&v p-oydr^pas rrts bLopdc&aeais t&v
ypa<^ojj.ivu)V, ihe koH omo t&v to, kavTois hoKOvvTa iv Trj biopddcrei
Tipo(TTidivT(av rj a(j)aipovvT<ov (Comment, on Matt., Tom. iii. p. 671,
Be la Rue). ' But now,' saith he, ' great in truth has become the
diversity of copies, be it from the neghgence of certain scribes,
or from the evil daring of some who correct what is written, or
from those who in correcting add or take away what they think
fit^ : ' just like Irenaeus had previously described revisers of the
text as persons ' qui peritiores apostolis volunt esse ' (Contra
Haeres. iv. 6. 1).

5. Nor can it easily be denied that the various readings of
the New Testament cun-ent from the middle of the second to the
middle of the third century, were neither fewer nor less consider-
able than such language would lead us to anticipate. Though no

^ In this place (contrary to what might have been inferred from the language
of Irenaeus, cited above, p. 262, note 2) the copyist {■ypafevs) is clearly distinct
from the corrector (SiopBariis), who either alters the words that stand in the text,
or adds to and subtracts from them. In Cobet's masterly Preface to his own
and Kuenen's ' N. T. ad fidem Cod. Vatioani,' Leyden, 1860, pp. xxvii-xxxiv,
will be found most of the passages we have used that bear on the subject, with
the following from classical writers, ' Nota est Strabonis querela xiii. p. 609 de
bibliopolis, qui libros edebaut ypcupeiai ipaiKois xP^I'-^^oh *"' ""* avTiPiXKovTis , . .
Sic in Demosthenis Codice Monacensi ad finem Orationis xi annotatum est
AttupSiiBrj Tipis Svo 'ATTiKiavi, id est, corredus est (hie liber) ex duobus codidbus db
Attico (nobili calligrapho) descriptis.' Just as at the end of each of Terence's
plays the manuscripts read ' Oalliopius recensui.'

264 HISTORY OF THE. TEXT.

surviving manuscript of the Old Latin version, or versions, dates
before the fourth century, and most of them belong to a still
later age, yet the general correspondence of their text with that
used by the first Latin Fathers is a sufficient voucher for its
high antiquity. The connexion subsisting between this Latin
version, the Curetonian Syriac, and Codex Bezae, proves that
the text of these documents is considerably older than the vellum
on which they are written ; the Peshitto Syriac also, most pro-
bably the very earliest of all translations, though approaching
far nearer to the received text than they, sufficiently resembles
these authorities in many peculiar readings to exhibit the general
tone and character of one class of manuscripts extant in the
second century, two hundred years anterior to Codd. NB. Now
it may be said without extravagance that no set of Scriptural
records afibrds a text less probable in itself or less sustained by
any rational principles of external evidence, than that of Cod.
D, of the Latin codices, and (so far as it accords with them) of
Cureton's Syriac. Interpolations, as insipid in themselves as
unsupported by other evidence, abound in them all ^ : additions
so little in accordance with the genuine spirit of Holy Writ that
some critics (though I, for one, profess no skill in such alchemy)
have declared them to be as easily separable from the text which
they encumber, as the foot-notes appended to a modern book are
from the main body of the work (Tregelles, An Account of the
Printed Text, p. 138, note). It is no less true to fact than para-
doxical in sound, that the worst corruptions to which the New
Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred
years after it was composed ; that Irenaeus and the African
Fathers and the whole Western, with a portion of the Sjrrian
Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by
Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephen thirteen centuries later, when

' No doubt certain that are quite or almost peculiar to Cod. D would deserve
consideration if they were not destitute of adequate support. Some may be
inclined to think the words cited above in vol. I. p. 8 not unworthy of Him to whom
they are ascribed. The margin of the Harkleian Syriac alone countenances D
in that touching appendage to Acts viii. 24, which every one must wish to be
genuine, os iroWa nXamv ov Su\v[i]ii,waviv. Several minute facts are also inserted
by D in the latter part of the same book, which are more likely to rest on tra-
ditional knowledge than to be mere exercises of an idle fancy. Such are otro
apas i €as SeKarrjs annexed to the end of Acts xix. 9 : Km Mvpa to Acts xxi. 1 ;
the former of which is also found in Cod. 137 and the Harkleian margin;
the latter in the Sahidic and one or two Latin copies.

SECOND, THIRD, AND FOURTH CENTURIES. 265

moulding the Textus Eeceptus. What passage in the Holy
Gospels would be more jealously guarded than the record of the
heavenly voice at the Lord's Baptism ? Yet Augustine (De Con-
sensu Evangelist, ii. 14) marked a variation which he thought
might be found ' in aliquibus fide dignis exemplaribus,' though
not ' in antiquioribus codicibus Graecis,' where, in the place of
li> (701 97i;8o'KTjo-a (Luke iii. 22), the words eyu o-Tj/xepov yeyevvrjKa ae
are substituted from Psalm ii. 7 : so also reads the Manichaean
Faustus apud Augustin. ; Enchiridion ad Laurentium, c. 49.
The only Greek copy which maintains this important reading is
D : it is met with moreover in abe (in d of course), in^^ prima
manvj, and in I, whose united evidence leaves not a doubt of its
existence in the primitive Old Latin ; whence it is cited by Hilary
three times, by Lactantius and Juvencus, to which list Abbot
adds Hilary the deacon (Quaestiones V. et N. T.). Among the
Greeks it is known but to Methodius, and to those very early
writers, Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria, who seem to
have derived the corruption (for such it must doubtless be
regarded) from the Ebionite Gospel (Epiphan., Haeres., xxi. 13)^.
So again of a doubtful passage which we shall examine in
Chapter XH, L'enaeus cites Acts viii. 37 without the least
misgiving, though the spuriousness of the verse can hardly be
doubted ; and expressly testifies to a reading in Matt. i. 18 which
has not till lately found many advocates. It is hard to believe
that I John v. 7, 8 was not cited by Cyprian, and even the
interpolation in Matt. xx. 28 was widely known and received.
Many other examples might be produced from the most vener-
able Christian writers, in which they countenance variations
(and those not arbitrary, but resting on some sort of authority)
which no modern critic has ever attempted to vindicate.

6. When we come down to the fourth centurj^ our informa-
tion grows at once more definite and more trustworthy. Copies
of Scripture had been extensively destroyed during the long
and terrible period of affliction that preceded the conversion of

' Considering that Cod. D and the Latin manuscripts contain the variation
in Luke iii. 22, but not in Matt. iii. 17, we ought not to doubt that Justin
Martyr (p. 381 B, ed. Paris, 1686) and Clement (p. 113, ed. Potter) refer to the
former. Hence Bp. Kaye (Account of the Writings of Clement, p. 410) should
not have produced this passage among others to show (what in itself is quite
true) that ' Clement frequently quotes from memory.'

266 HISTORY OF THE TEXT.

Constantine. In the very edict which marked the beginning
of Diocletian's persecution, it is ordered that the holy writings
should be burnt (ray ypacpas o^aiieis irvpl yevea-dai, Eusebius,
Eccl. Hist., viii. 2) ; and the cruel decree was so rigidly enforced
that a special name of reproach {traditores), together with the
heaviest censures of the Church, was laid upon those Christians
who betrayed the sacred trust (Bingham, Antiquities, book xvi.
ch. vi. 25). At such a period critical revision or even the
ordinary care of devout transcribers must have disappeared
before the pressure of the times. Fresh copies of the New
Testament would have to be made in haste to supply the room
of those seized by the enemies of our Faith ; and, when made,
they had to circulate by stealth among persons whose lives were
in jeopardy every hour. Hence arose the need, when the
tempest was overpast, of transcribing many new manuscripts of
the Holy Bible, the rather as the Church was now receiving vast
accessions of converts within her pale. Eusebius of Caesarea,
the ecclesiastical historian, seems to have taken the lead in
this happy labour ; his extensive learning, which by the aid of
certain other less commendable qualities had placed him high
in Constantine's favour, rendered it natural that the emperor
should employ his services for furnishing with fifty copies of
Scripture the churches of his new capital, Constantinople.
Eusebius' deep interest in Biblical studies is exhibited in
several of his surviving works, as well as in his Canons for
harmonizing the Gospels : and he would naturally betake him-
self for the text of his fifty codices to the Library founded at
his Episcopal city of Caesarea by the martyr Pamphilus, the
dear friend and teacher from whom he derived his own famUiar
appellation Eusebius Pamphili. Into this Library Pamphilus
had gathered manuscripts of Origen as well as of other
theologians, and of these Eusebius made an index (roiis irivaKas
TTapedeix-qv : Eccles. Hist., vi. 32). From this collection Cod. H of
St. Paul and others are stated to have been derived, nay
even Cod. {^ in its Old Testament portion (see vol. I. p. 55 and
note), which is expressly declared to have been corrected to the
Hexapla of Origen. Indeed we know from Jerome (Comment,
in Epist. ad Tit.) that the very autograph (' ipsa authentica ') of
Origen's Hexapla was used by himself at Caesarea, and Mont-
faucon (Praeliminaria in Hexapl., chap. i. 5) cites from one

FOURTH CENTURY. 267

manuscript the following subscription to Ezekiel, 'O EvaipLos
eya (TXo'Xta -napidriKa, Yldfx.(^{.\os Kot Evcrepios khmpBuxravTO.

7. We are thus warranted, as well from direct evidence as
from the analogy of the Old Testament, to believe that Eusebius
mainly resorted for his Constantinopolitan Ghurch-books to the
codices of Pamphilus, which might once have belonged to
Origen. What critical corrections (if any) he ventured to make
in the text on his own judgement is not so clear. Not that there
is the least cause to believe, with Dr. Nolan (Inquiry into the
Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, p. 27), that Eusebius had either
the power or the will to suppress or tamper with the great
doctrinal texts i John v. 7, 8 ; i Tim. iii. 16 ; Acts xx. 28 ; yet
we cannot deny that his prepossessions may have tempted him
to arbitrary alterations in other passages, which had no direct
bearing on the controversies of his age 1. Codd. NB are quite
old enough to have been copied under his inspection ^, and it is
certainly very remarkable that these two early manuscripts omit
one whole paragraph (Mark xvi. 9-20) with his sanction, if
not after his example {see below. Chap. XII). Thus also in
Matt, xxiii. 35 Cod. J>*, with the countenance only of Evan. 59,
Evst. 6, 13, 222 [see under Evst. 222), discards vlov ^apaxiov, for
which change Eusebius [silentio) is literally the only authority
among the Fathers, Irenaeus and even Origen retaining the
words, in spite of their obvious difficulty. The relation in which
Cod. N stands to the other four chief manuscripts of the Gospels,
may be roughly estimated from analyzing the transcript of four
pages first published by Tischendorf ^, as well as in any other

^ This point is exceedingly well stated by Canon Cook (Revised Version of
the first three Gospels, p. 176) : ' I will not dwell upon indications of Arian

tendencies. They are not such as we should be entitled to rely upon

Eusebius was certainly above the suspicion of consciously introducing false
' statements or of obliterating true statements. As was the case with many
supporters of the high Arian party, which came nearest to the sound orthodox
faith, Eusebius was familiar with all scriptural texts which distinctly ascribe
to our Lord the divine attributes and the divine name, and was far moi-e likely
to adopt an explanation which coincided with his own system, than to incur
the risk of exposure and disgrace by obliterating or modifying them in manu-
scripts which would be always open to public inspection.'

^ 'This is possible, though there is no proof of it,' is Professor Abbot's com-
ment {vM supra, p. 190, but see above, vol. i. p. 118, note 2).

^ In the 'Notitia Editionis Cod. Sin.,' 1860. They are Matt, xxvii. 64—
xxviii. 20 ; Mark i. 1-35 ; Luke xxiv. 24-53 ; John xxi. 1-25. Other like calcula-

268 HISTORY OF THE TEXT.

way. Of the 312 variations from the common text therein
noted, t< stands alone in forty-five, in eight agrees with ABCD
united (much of C, however, is lost in these passages), with ABC
together thirty-one times, with ABD fourteen, with AB thirteen,
with D alone ten, with B alone but once (Mark i. 27), with C
alone once : with several authorities against AB thirty-nine times,
with A against B fifty-two, with B against A ninety-eight.
Hence, while the discovery of this precious document has
unquestionably done much to uphold Cod. B (which is the more
correctly written, and doubtless the more valuable of the two) in
many of its more characteristic and singular readings, it has
made the mutual divergencies of the very oldest critical
authorities more patent and perplexing than ever^.

8. Codd. ^^B were apparently anterior to the age of Jerome,
the latest ecclesiastical writer whose testimony need be dwelt
upon, since from his time downwards the stream of extant and
direct manuscript evidence, beginning with Codd. AC, flows on
without interruption. Jerome's attention was directed to the
criticism of the Greek Testament by his early Biblical studies,
and the knowledge he thus obtained had full scope for its
exercise when he was engaged on revising the Old Latin version.
In his so-often cited 'Praefatio ad Damasum,' prefixed to his
recensioQ of the Gospels, he complains of certain * codices, quos
a Luciano et Hesychio nuncupates, paucorum hominum asserit
perversa, contentio,' and those not of the Old Testament alone,
but also of the New. This obscure and passing notice of corrupt
and (apparently) interpolated copies has been made the founda-
tion of more than one theory as fanciful as ingenious. Jerome
further informs us that he had adopted in his translation the
canons which Eusebius ' Alexandrium secutus Ammonium ' {but

tions, with much the same result, are given in Scrivener's ' Cod. Sin.,' Introd.
pp. xlii, xliii.

'■ And that too hardly to the credit of either of them. ' Ought it not,' asks
Dean Eurgon, ' sensibly to detract from our opinion of the value of their evi-
dence to discover that it is easier to find two consecutive verses in which the two MSS.
differ, the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree ? . . .
On every such occasion only one of them can possibly be speaking the truth.
Shall I be thought unreasonable if I confess that these perpetual inconsistencies
between Codd. B and !S — grave inconsistencies, and occasionally even gross
ones — altogether destroy my confidence in either ? ' (Last Twelve Verses of
St. Mark, pp. 77-8.)

FOURTH CENTURY. 269

see Vol. I. pp. 59, &c.) had invented or first brought into vogue ;
stating, and, in his usual fashion, somewhat exaggerating ^, an
evil these canons helped to remedy, the mixing up of the matter
peculiar to one Evangelist with the narrative of another.
Hence we might naturally expect that the Greek manuscripts
he would view with special favour, were the same as Eusebius
had approved before him. In the scattered notices throughout
his works, Jerome sometimes speaks but vaguely of ' quaedam
exemplaria tarn Graeca quam Latina ' (Luke xxii. 43-4, almost
in the words of Hilary, his senior) ; or appeals to readings ' in
quibusdam exemplaribus et maxime in Graecis codieibus'
(Mark xvi. 14). Occasionally we hear of ' multi et Graeci et
Latini codices' (John vii. 53), or ' vera exemplaria' (Matt. v. 22;
xxi. 31), or 'antiqua exemplaria' (Luke ix. 23), without
specifying in which language : Mark xvi. 9-20 ' in raris fertur
Evangeliis,' since ' omnes Graeciae libri paene ' do not contain
it^. In two places, however, he gives a more definite account
of the copies he most regarded. In Galat. iii. 1 rfj akr,dei.q jn^
ireWea-dai is omitted by Jerome, because it is not contained ' in
exemplaribus Adamantii,' although (as he elsewhere informs
us) ' et Graeca exemplaria hoc errore confusa sint.' In the
other of the two passages Jerome remarks that in some
Latin copies of Matt. xxiv. 36 neque filius is added, ' quum
in Graecis, et maxime Adamantii et Pierii exemplaribus, hoc
non habeatur adscriptum.' Pierius the presbyter of Alexandria,
elsewhere called by Jerome ' the younger Origen ' (Cat. Scriptt.
EccL, i. p. 128), has been deprived by fortune of the honour
due to his merit and learning. A contemporary, perhaps the
teacher of Pamphilus (Euseb., Eccl. Hist., vii. 32) at Caesarea,
his copies of Scripture would naturally be preserved with those
of Origen in the great Library of that city. Here they were
doubtless seen by Jerome when, to his deep joy, he found
Origen's writings copied in Pamphilus' hand (Cat. Scriptt. Eccl.,

' Magnus siquidem hie in nostris codieibus error inolevit, dum quod in eadem
re alius Evangelista plus dixit, in alio, quia minus putaverint, addiderunt. Vel
dum eundem sensum alius alitor expressit, ille qui unum e quatuor primum
legerat, ad ejus exemplurh ceteros quoque existimaverit emendandos. Unde
accidii ut apiid nos mixta sint omnia (Praef. ad Damasumi.

^ The precise references may be seen in Tisehendorf s, and for the most part
more exactly in Tregelles' N. T. That on Matt. xxiv. 36 is Tom. vii. p. 199, or
vi. p. 5i ; on Galat. iii. 1 is Tom. vii. pp. 418, 487.

270 HISTORY OF THE TEXT.

ubi supra), which volumes Acacius and Euzoius, elder con-
temporaries of Jerome himself, had taken pious care to repair
and renew (ibid. i. p. 131 ; ad Marcell. Ep. cxli). It is not
therefore wonderful if, employing as they did and setting
a high value on precisely the same manuscripts of the N. T.,
the readings approved by Origen.'Eusebius, and Jerome should
closely agree.

9. Epiphanius [d. 403], who wrote at about the same period
as Jerome, distinguishes in his note on Luke xix. 41 or xxii. 44
(Tom. ii. p. 36) between the uncorrected copies {ahiopd(oTOLs), and
those used by the Orthodox ^. Of the function of the ' corrector'
(8top9co7?js) of an ancient manuscript we have spoken several
times before : but a system was devised by Professor J. L. Hug
of Freyburg (Einleitung, 1808), and maintained, though with
some modifications, by J. G. Eichhorn, which assigned to these
occasional, and (as they would seem to be) unsystematic labours
of the reviser, a foremost place in the criticism of the N. T.
Hug conceived that the process of corruption had been going on
so rapidly and uniformly from the Apostolic age downwards,
that by the middle of the third century the state of the text in
the general mass of codices had degenerated into the form
exhibited in Codd. D, 1, 13, 69, 124 of the Gospels, the Old Latin
and Sahidic (he would now have added the Curetonian Syriac)
versions, and to some extent in the Peshitto and in the citations
of Clement of Alexandria and of Origen in his early works. To
this uncorrected text he gave the name of Koivr] IkSoct-js, and that
it existed, substantially in the interpolated shape now seen in
Cod. D, the Old Latin, and Cureton's Syriac, as early as the
second century, need not be doubted. There is some foundation
for this position, but it was marred by Hug's lack of sobriety of
judgement. What we may fairly dispute is that this text ever

' See our note on Luke xxii. 44 below in Chap. XI. This same ■wi-iter testifies
to a practice already partially employed, of using breathings, accents, and stops
in copies of Holy Scripture. 'CireiS^ S4 Tires icaTcl irpoa^Siav iari^av tot ypa(pAs
Kal nepl rSiv trpoutpbwv TaSe' h^iia ', Zadia *, Papeia ^, i/ziX^ *, ireptanojft^VT] ^, &Tr6-
arpwpos ', fxaKpa -, vcp^v O, ^pax^Ta o, vvoSukttoKtj , . 'nffwuras ftal irepl rwv XoiirStv
arifieiaiv k. t. \. (Epiphan., De Mensur., c. 2, Tom. iii. p. 237 Migue'). This pas-
sage may tend to confirm the statements made above, Vol. I. pp. 45-8, respecting
the presence of such marks in very ancient codices, though on the whole we may
not quite vouch for Sir F. Madden's opinion as regards Cod. A.

FOURTH AND FIFTH CENTURIES. 27 1

had extensive circulation or good repute in the Churches whose
vernacular language was Greek. This ' common edition ' Hug
supposes to have received three separate emendations in the
middle of the third century ; one made by Origen in Palestine,
which he thinks Jerome adopted and approved ; two others by
Hesychius and Lucian (a presbyter of Antioch and Martyr), in
Egypt and Syria respectively, both which Jerome condemned
and Pope Gelasius (a. d. 492-6) declared to be apocryphal ^- To
Origen's recension he referred such copies as AKM, 42, 106, 114,
116, 253 of the Gospels, the Harkleian Syriac, the quotations
of Chrysostom and Theodoret; to Hesychius the Alexandrian
codices BCL ; to Lucian the Byzantine documents EFGHSV and
the mass of later books. The practical effect of this elaborate
theory would be to accord to Cod. A a higher place among our
ai;ithorities than some recent editors have granted it, even than
it quite deserves, yet its correspondence with Origen in many
characteristic readings would thus be admitted and accounted
for [but see p. 226). But in truth Hug's whole scheme is utterly
baseless as regards historical fact, and most insufficiently sus-
taiued by internal proof. Jerome's slight and solitary mention
of the copies of Lucian and Hesychius abundantly evinces their
narrow circulation and the low esteem in which they were held ;
and even Eichhorn perceived that there was no evidence what-
ever to show that Origen had attempted a formal revision of the
text. The passages cited above, both from Eusebius and Jerome
— and no others are known to bear on the subject — ^will carry
us no further than this: — that these Fathers had access to
codices of the N. T. once possessed by Adamantius, and here and
there, perhaps, retouched by his hand. The manuscripts copied
by Pamphilus were those of Origen's own works ; and while we
have full and detailed accounts of what he accomplished for the
Greek versions of the Old Testament, no hint has been thrown
out by any ancient writer that he carried his pious labour into

' ' Evangelia quae falsavit Lucianus, apocrypha.' ' Evangelia quae falsavit
Esitius [aMi Hesychius ml Isicius], apocrypha,' occur separately in the eoui-se of
a long list of spurious books (such as the Gospels of Thaddaeus, Matthias, Peter,
James, that 'nomine Thomae quo utuntur Manichaei,' &c.) in Appendix iii to
Gelasius' works in Migne's Patrologia, Tom. lix. p. 162 [a. d. 494]. But the
authenticity of those decrees is far from certain, and since we hear of these
falsified Gospels nowhere else, Gelasius' knowledge of them might have been
derived from what he had read in Jerome's ' Praef. ad Damasum.'

272 HISTORY OF THE TEXT.

the criticism of the New. On the contrary, he seems to disclaim
the task in a sentence now extant chiefly in the old Latin
version of his works, wherein, to a notice of his attempt to
remove diversity of reading from codices of the Septuagint by
the help of ' the other editions ' [KpiTr\piio -j^^pria-aixevoL rais XoLirals
fKboa-ea-iv, i. e. the versions of Aquila and the rest), he is
represented as adding, 'In exemplaribus autem Novi Testa-
menti, hoc ipsum me posse facere sine periculo non putavi '
(Origen, Tom. iii. p. 671).

10. Hug's system of recensions was devised as a corrective
to those of Bengel and of Griesbach, which have been adequately
discussed in Chapter VII. The veteran Griesbach spent his last
effort as a writer in bringing to notice the weak points of Hug's
case, and in claiming him, where he rightly could, as a welcome
ally ^. But neither did Hug's scheme, nor that propounded by
Scholz some years later, obtain the general credit and acceptance
which had once been conceded to Griesbach's. It was by this
time plainly seen that not only were such theories unsupported
by historical testimony (to which indeed the Professor of HaUe
had been too wise to lay claim), but that they failed to account
for more than a part, and that usually a small part, of the
phenomena disclosed by minute study of our critical materials.
All that can be inferred from searching into the history of the
sacred text amounts to no more than this : that extensive

* Griesbach rejoices to have Hug's assent 'in eo, in quo disputatiouis de
veteribus N. T. recensionibus cardo vertitur ; nempe extitisse, inde a seoundo et
tertio saeoulo, plures saeri textus recensiones, quarum una, si Evangelia spectes,
supersit in Codice D, altera in Codd. BCL, alia in Codd. EFGHS et quae sunt
reliqua ' (Meletemata, p. Ixviii, prefixed to ' Commentarius Criticus,' Pars ii, 1811).
I suppose that Tregelles must have overlooked this decisive passage (probably
the last its author wi-ote for the public eye) when he states that Griesbach now
' virtually gave up his system ' as regards the possibility of ' drawing an actual
line of distinction between his Alexandrian and Western recensions' (An
Account of the Printed Text, p. 91). He certainly showed, throughout his
' Commentarius Criticus,' that Origen does not lend him the support he had once
anticipated ; but he still held that the theory of a triple recension was the very
hinge on which the whole question tui-ned, and clung to that theory as tenaciously
as ever. Thikd Edition. Dr. Hort (N. T., Introd. p. 186) has since confirmed
our opinion that Griesbach was faithful to the last to the essential characteristics
of his theory, adding that 'the Meletemata of 1811 . . . reiterate Griesbach's
familiar statements in precise language, while they show a growing perception
of mixture which might have led him to further results if he had not died in
the following spring.'

LATER VIEWS. 273

variations, arising no doubt from the wide circulation of the
New Testament in different regions and among nations of diverse
languages, subsisted from the earliest period to which our records
extend. Beyond this point our investigations cannot be carried,
without indulging in pleasant speculations which may amuse the
fancy, but cannot inform the sober judgement. Such is the
conclusion to which we are reluctantly brought after examining
the principles laid down, as well by the critics we have named
above, as by Lachmann, by his disciple Tregelles, and even by
the par nobile of Cambridge Doctors, Professor Hort and Bishop
(formerly^ Canon) Westcott, of whose labours we shall speak
presently.

VOL. II.

CHAPTEE X.

EEOENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.

"yET is it true that we are thus cast upon the wide ocean
-*- without a compass or a guide 1 Can no clue be found that
may conduct us through the tangled maze? Is there no other
method of settling the text of the New Testament than by
collecting and marshalling and scrutinizing the testimony of
thousands of separate documents, now agi-eeing, now at issue
with each other : — manuscripts, versions, ecclesiastical writers,
whose mutual connexion and interdependence, as far as they
exist (and to some extent they do and Tnust exist), defy all our
skill and industry to detect and estimate aright ? This would
surely be a discouraging view of critical science as applied to the
sacred volume, and it is by no means warranted by proved and
admitted facts. Elaborate systems have failed, as might have
been looked for from the first. It was premature to frame them
in the present stage of things, while the knowledge we possess of
the actual contents of our extant authorities is imperfect, vague,
and fragmentary ; while our conclusions are liable to be disturbed
from time to time by the rapid accession of fresh materials, of
whose character we are still quite ignorant. But if we be
incompetent to devise theories on a grand or imposing scale,
a more modest and a safer course is open. Men of the present
generation may be disqualified for taking a general survey of the
whole domain of this branch of divine learning, who may yet
be employed, serviceably and with honour, in cultivating each
one for himself some limited and humble field of special research,
to which his taste, his abilities, or opportunities have attached
him : those persons may usefully improve a farm, who cannot
hope to conquer a kingdom. Out of the long array of uncollated
manuscripts which swell our catalogues, let the student choose
from the mass a few within his reach which he may deem worthy
of complete examination ; or exhaust the information some
ecclesiastical writer of the first six centuries can afiford; or

RECENT VIEWS. 275

contribute what he can to an exact acquaintance with some good
ancient version, ascertaining the genius of its language and
(where this is attainable) the literary history of its text. If, in
the course of such quiet toil, he shall mark (as a patient observer
will find cause to mark) resemblances and affinities more than
accidental, between documents of widely different ages and
countries ; he will not only be contributing to the common stock
what cannot fail to be available hereafter as raw material, but
he will be helping to solve that great problem which has hitherto
in part eluded the most earnest inquiries, the investigation of
the true laws and principles of Comparative Criticism.

The last-mentioned term has been happily applied by Tregelles
to that delicate and important process, whereby we seek to
determine the- comparative value, and trace the mutual relation,
of authorities of every kind upon which the original text of the
N. T. is based. Thus explained (and in this enlarged sense
scholars have willingly accepted it), its researches may be
pursued with diligence and interest, without reference to the
maintenance or refutation of any particular system or scheme
of recensions. The mode of procedure is experimental and ten-
tative, rather than dogmatical ; the facts it gradually develops
will eventually (as we trust) put us on the right road, although
for the present we meet with much that is uncertain, perplexing,
ambiguous. It has already enabled critics in some degree to
classify the documents with which they have to deal ; it may
possibly lead them, at some future period, to the establishment
of principles more general, and therefore more simple, than we can
now conceive likely or even possible to be attained to.

1. In the course of investigations thus difficult and precarious,
designed to throw light on a matter of such vast consequence as
the genuine condition of the text of Scripture, one thing would
appear at first sight almost too clear for argument, too self-
evident to be disputed, — that it is both our wisdom and our duty
to weigh the momentous subject at issue in all its parts, shutting
out from the mind no source of information which can reasonably
be supposed capable of influencing our decision. Nor can such
a course become less right or expedient because it must perforce
involve us in laborious, extensive, and prolonged examination of
a vast store of varied and voluminous testimony. It is essential

T a

276 RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.

that divines should strive to come to definite conclusions
respecting disputed points of sacred criticism ; it is not necessary
that these conclusions should be drawn within a certain limited
period, either this year, or even in the lifetime of our generation.
Hence such a plan as that advocated by Lachmann, for abridging
the trouble of investigation by the arbitrary rejection of the great
mass of existing evidence, must needs be condemned for its rash-
ness by those who think their utmost pains well bestowed in
such a cause ; nor can we consistently praise the determination
of others, who, shunning the more obvious errors into which
Lachmann fell, yet follow his example in constructing the text
of the N. T. on a foundation somewhat less narrow, but scarcely
more firm than his. As the true science of Biblical criticism is
in real danger of suffering harm from the eiforts of disciples of
this school, it cannot be out of place if we examine the pleas
which have been urged in vindication of their scheme, and assign
(as briefly as we may) our reasons for believing that its apologists
are but labouring in vain.

3. Brevis vita, ars longa. For this lawful cause, if for no
other, the most ardent student of Biblical criticism would fain
embrace some such system as is advocated by Lachmann and
his followers, if only it could be done in tolerable safety. The
process of investigation might thus be diminished twentyfold,
and the whole subject brought within a compass not too vast
for one man's diligence or the space of an ordinary lifetime.
The simplicity and comparative facility of this process of
resorting to the few for instruction hitherto supposed to be
diffused among the many, has created in its favour a strong and
not unnatural prejudice, which has yielded, so far as it has yet
yielded at all, to nothing but the stubborn opposition of indis-
putable facts. It will also readily be admitted, that certain
principles, not indeed peculiar to this theory, but brought by it
into greater prominence, are themselves most reasonable and
true. No one will question, for example, that ' if the reading of
the ancient authorities in general is unanimous, there can be but
little doubt that it should be followed, whatever may be the
later testimonies ; for it is most improbable that the independent
testimony of early MSS., versions, and Fathers should accord
with regard to something entirely groundless ' (Tregelles, N. T.,

LACHMANN. 277

Introductory Notice, p. 2). No living man, possessed of a tincture
of scholarship, would dream of setting up testimony exclusively
modern against the unanimous voice of antiquity. The point on
which we insist is briefly this : — that the evidence of ancient
authorities is anything but unanimous ; that they are perpetually
at variance with each other, even if we limit the term ancient
within the narrowest bounds. Shall it include, among the
manuscripts of the Gospels, none but the five oldest copies Codd.
HABCD ^ ? The reader has but to open the first recent critical
work he shall meet with, to see them scarcely ever in unison ;
perpetually divided two against three, or perhaps four against
one. All the readings these venerable monuments contain must
of course be ancient, or they would not be found where they
are ; but they cannot all be true. So again, if our search be
extended to the versions and primitive Fathers, the same pheno-
menon unfolds itself, to our grievous perplexity and disappoint-
ment. How much is contained in Cureton's Syriac and the Old
Latin for which no Greek original can now be alleged ? Do not
the earliest ecclesiastical writers describe readings as existing
and current in their copies, of which few traces can be met with
at present ^? If the question be fairly proposed, ' What right
have we to set virtually aside the agreement in the main of our
oldest uncials, at the distance of one or two centuries — of
which, owing probably to the results of persecution, we have
no MS. remains — with the citations of the primitive Fathers,
and with the earliest versions ? ' : the answer must be rendered,
without hesitation, no rigid whatever. Where the oldest of
these authorities really agree, we accept their united testimony
as practically conclusive. It is not at all our design to seek our
readings from the later uncials, suppoi'ted as they usually are by
the mass of cursive manuscripts ; but to employ their confessedly
secondary evidence in those numberless instances wherein their
elder brethren are hopelessly at variance^. We do not claim for
the recent documents the high consideration and deference fitly

1 It should be also observed that #2 containing SS. Matthew and Mark are
probably older than D.

' E. g. Matt. i. 18 ; Acts viii. 37 for Irenaeus ; Acts xiii. 33 for Origen. It is
rare indeed that the express testimony of a Father is so fully confirmed by the
oldest copies as in John i. 28, where BTjSav'iq, said by Origen to be ax^Sov iv iraai
Tois &vTi-Ypa<pois, actually appears in N*ABC*.

^ This view is controverted in Burgon's ' Remains.'

278 RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.

reserved for a few of the oldest ; just as little do we think it
right to pass them by in silence, and allow to them no more
weight or importance than if they had never been written.
' There are passages,' to employ the words of a very competent
judge, ' where the evidence of the better cursives may be of
substantial use in confirming a good reading, or in deciding us
between two of nearly equal merit to place one in the text and
assign the other to the margin ^.'

3. It may readily be supposed that the very few manuscripts
which, being ancient themselves, are regarded by the school of
Lachmann as alone preserving an ancient and genuine form, have
not been selected as virtually the sole authorities for the settling
of the sacred text, except for reasons which those who thus adopt
them regard as weighty, and which merit at any rate our best
consideration before we put them aside as insufficient. The
great uncials, we are told, are treated with so much deference,
not only or chiefly because they are old, but because they have
been rigorously tested and have proved on trial to deserve the
confidence which has been reposed in them. The process of
investigation shall now be stated, as fairly and even favourably
as possible. It is not worth while, as it certainly is not our
desire, to snatch a transient advantage by misrepresenting the
views we are controverting. We would rather comprise in our
own system all that is sound and exact in them, while we with-
stand the attempt to carry them beyond the limits which they
may legitimately occupy, and refuse to generalize on the strength
of facts which are only partially true.

We have already laid down the axiom admitted by all, that
manuscripts of the original hold the fii'st rank among our critical
materials ; versions, and, yet more, the citations of ecclesiastical
authors being subordinate to them. Yet whatever other dis-
advantages the Patristic writings may labour under, we are at

' Mr. A. A. Vansittart, Journal of Philology, vol. ii. No. S, p. 35. I suppose too
that Mr. Hammond means much the same thing when he says, ' It seems almost
superfluous to affirm that eoery element of evidence must be cUhwed its full weight;
but it is a principle that must not be forgotten.' (Outlines of Textual Criticism,
p. 93, 2nd edition.) Truly it is not superfluous to insist on this principle when
we so perpetually find the study of the cursive manuscripts disparaged by the
use of what we may venture to call the Caliph Omar's argument, that if they
agree with the older authorities their evidence is superfluous, if they contradict
them, it is necessarily false.

SCHOOL OF LACHMANN. 279

any rate ceiiain respecting the age in which they were composed,
the works themselves being assumed to be authentic. If Irenaeus,
or Tertullian, or Origen, expressly assure us that particular words
which they name were read in their copies of Scripture, we
cannot withstand their testimony that such words were really
found in manuscripts of the New Testament in the second and
third centuries, one or two hundred years before Codd. fr^B were
in existence. If, therefore, we take a various reading of the
text for which any one of these venerable men has vouched,
and observe that it is supported perhaps by a few manuscripts
of various ages, then by a version or two, especially if they be
natives of different countries, and flow together into the same
stream from sources remote from each other ; — the rather too if
the reading be plausible and even probable in itself: — and if,
after having formed an opinion that on the whole it deserves to
be respectfully considered, we then turn to N or B, or to both,
and discover the same reading in them also : — not only has the
variation itself made out an urgent case for our acceptance, but
the character of i^ and B as faithful witnesses is largely enhanced.
It is moreover evident, that if the same method of investigation
be pursued many times over with the same, or something
approaching to the same success, the value of t^ and B as
truthful codices will be proportionally increased.

A single good example of this process will make it yet more
intelligible to the careful student. It shall be one that has been
chosen for the purpose by more than one of the advocates of the
system we are on the whole opposing. Of the two forms in
which the Lord's Prayer is delivered to us, Matt. vi. 13 has the
clause dAAo pvaai fifias airo tov Ttoviipov in every known authority :
in Luke xi. 4 the case is far otherwise. That Tertullian, when
citing the words before and after it, should take no notice of it,
would of itself prove little. Origen, however, once passes it by
in like manner, once more expressly declares that it was not in
St. Luke {vapa tiS AovkS. creo-ttiiTrrjrat), a third time explains in his
most happy manner why it was omitted by the one Evangelist,
inserted by the other. The question thus raised sets us upon the
inquiry what other evidence we have for rejecting the clause in
St. Luke. It appears to be wanting in several Greek manu-
scripts, such as L, 1, 33, 57, 130 both Greek and Latin, 131,
336*, 237, 343, 436, 583, 604, and in the catenas annexed to 36,

28o RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.

237, 239, 253, 259, 426 ; several of these codices (as 57, 226,
242) not being much found in such company. It is absent from
the Vulgate version, and apparently from some forms of the Old
Latin, the rather as Augustine says that St. Luke gives five
petitions in the Lord's Prayer, St. Matthew seven, and attributes
the omission of our clause to some such reason as Origen had
assigned. It is omitted also in the Armenian version, which,
except for the later translation by Sahak from Syriae, might
be supposed to differ toto caelo from the Latin in country
and genius. The list is closed by the younger Cyril, a pure
witness from another region, very different lines of evidence
thus converging into one. Then comes the probability
that if one of the Gospels contained the Lord's Prayer in
a shorter form than the other, nothing was so likely as that
a scribe in perfect innocence would supply what he considered
an undoubted defect, without staying to reflect with Origen and
Augustine that the two were delivered on different occasions, to
different classes of persons, with different ends in view. Turning
therefore now, with a strong case already made out for the
omission of the clause, to N and B, which have been hitherto
kept out of sight, we find that B has not the disputed words at
all, nor had t^ by the first hand, but in one three centuries later.
The clear result, so far as it goes, is at once to vindicate the
claim of t^B to high consideration, and to make out a formidable
case against the genuineness of the six words involved. We
say advisedly a formidable, not necessarily a fatal case, for the
counter evidence is still very strong, and comes as much as that
alleged above from different quarters, being also as early as widely
diffused. It consists of Codd. ACDEFGHKMRi SUVFAAn, of

^ The evidence of Evan. R, which contains only the decisive letters
NHpoy, is the more valuable, inasmuch as it has been alleged to support the
readings of documents of the other class (which no doubt it often does) and
thus to afford a confirmation of their authority; it cannot help them much
when its vote is against them. On analyzing the 908 readings for which K is
cited in Tisohendorf s eighth edition, I find that it sides with A, the representa-
tive of the one class, 356 times ; with its better reputed rival B 157 times, where
A and B are at variance. It is with A alone of the great uncials 101 times, with
B alone four, with N alone five, with C alone (but is lost in 473 places out of
the 908) six ; with D alone twenty-four. Some of its other combinations are
instructive. It is with AC forty-two times and with ACL sixteen ; with AD
fifty-one and with ADL eighteen ; with NB eleven and with XBL twenty-nine ;
with NL nine times ; with AL nineteen ; with BL fifteen ; with CL never ;

PREFERENCE OF FEW AUTHORITIES. 281

all cursives not named above, of the Old Latin b c fff il q,
whereof/ mostly goes with the Vulgate (hiant a e), the Bohairic,
Peshitto, Curetonian, Harkleian Syriac (the Jerusalem not con-
taining this week-day Lesson), and the Ethiopic versions. So
far as this side as stated is weak at all, it lacks Patristic evidence
(which cannot now be investigated for our purpose), and the
balance of internal evidence is decidedly adverse to it.

4. The student may try the same experiments on two other
passages often urged in this debate, Matt. v. 22, for which he
will find the materials above, p. 255, and Matt. xix. 17, which
will be discussed in Chap. XII. We freely admit that these are
but a few out of many cases where the statements of ancient
writers about whose date there can be no question are borne out
by the readings of the more ancient codices, especially of t< or B,
or of the two united. Undoubtedly this circumstance lends
a weight and authority to these manuscripts, and to the few
which side with them, which their mere age would not procure
for them : it does not entitle them to be regarded as virtually the
only documents worthy of being consulted in the recension of
the sacred text ; as qualifying to be sole arbiters in critical
questions relating to the New Testament, against whose decision
there can be no appeal. Yet nothing less than this is claimed in
behalf of one or two of them by their devoted admirers. In
a court of justice, we are told, when once the evidence of
a witness has been thoroughly probed and tested, it is received
thenceforth as true, even on those points where it stands alone,
and in the face of strong antecedent improbabilities. Now
reasoning in metaphor has its advantages, as well for the sake of
clearly expressing our meaning, as of making an impression on
those we address; but it is attended with this grave inconve-
nience, that, since the analogy between no two things that can
be compared is quite complete, we are sorely tempted to apply to
the one of them properties which appertain exclusively to the
other. Li the present instance, besides the properties wherein
documentary can be assimilated to oral testimony, such as

with DL twice. Cod. R stands unsupported by any of the preceding eighty-
nine times, seldom without some countenance (but see Luke xi. 24 l«), such as
the Memphitio version, or later codices. In the places where its fragments
coincide with those of Cod. B (which is much more friendly to B) they agree
127 times, differ 105.

282 RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.

general accuracy and means of information, an important ele-
ment is present in the latter, to which the former has nothing
parallel, namely, moral character, that full persuasion of
a witness's good faith and disinterested integrity to which a jury
will often surrender, and rightly surrender, all earlier impres-
sions and predilections. Of this we can have nothing in the
case of the manuscripts of Scripture which we now possess. In
the second century we have seen too many instances of attempts
to tamper with the text of Scripture, some merely injudicious,
others positively dishonest ; but all this was over long before
the scribes of the foui-th and fifth centuries began their happy
task, as simple and honest copyists of the older records placed
before them. Let their testimony be received with attention at
all times ; let it be accepted as conclusive whensoever there are
no grave reasons to the contrary, but let not their paramount
authority shut out aU other considerations, external and internal,
which might guide us to the true reading of a passage ; nor let
us be so illogical as to conclude, because N and B are sometimes
right, that therefore they never are in the wrong ^-

The results of this excessive and irrational deference to one of
our chief codices, that which he was so fortunate as to bring to
the light twenty-five years ago, appears plainly in Tischendorf 's
eighth edition of the New Testament. That great critic had
never been conspicuous for stability of judgement. His third
edition was constructed almost without any reference to the
cursive manuscripts, which, unless they be, what no one asserts
or imagines, merely corrupt copies, or copies of copies, of exist-
ing uncials, must needs be the representatives of yet older codices
which have long since perished : ' respectable ancestors ' (as one
has quaintly put the matter) ' who live only in their descendants '
(Long, Ciceronis Verrin. Orat., Praef. p. vi)^- In Tischendorf 's

' Dean Burgon avers that he is thoroughly convinced that ' no reading can
be of real Importance — I mean has a chance of being true — which is witnessed
to exclusively by a very few copies, whether uncial or cursive. . . Nothing else
are such extraordinary readings, wherever they may happen to be found, but fragments
of primitive error, repudiated by the Church ( ' a witness and keeper of Holy
Writ ') in her corporate capacity.' (Letter in the Chiardian, July 12, 1882.)
I cannot go quite so far as this. [Dean Burgon has left his reply.]

^ Not that we can in any way assent to the notions of Canon T. K. Birks
(Essay on the right estimation of manuscript evidence in the text of the N. T.,
1878), whose proposition that ' Constant increase of error is no certain and
inevitable result of repeated transcription' (p. 33) is true enough in itself,

TISCHENDORF. 283

seventh edition, completed in 1859, that error was rectified, and
the sum of textual variations between the third and seventh
edition in consequence amounted to 1296, in no less than 595 of
which (430 of the remainder being mere matters of spelling) he
returned to the readings of the Received text, which he had
before deserted, but to which fresh materials and larger experi-
ence had brought him back^- In the eighth edition another
disturbing element is introduced, and that edition differs from
his seventh in as many as 3369 places, to the scandal of the
science of Comparative Criticism, as well as to his own grave
discredit for discernment and consistency. The evidence of
Cod. t^, supported or even unsupported by one or two authorities
of any description, proved with him sufficient to outweigh all
other witnesses, whether manuscripts, versions, or ecclesiastical
writers.

The foregoing examination will probably have satisfied the
student that we have no right to regard Cod. £ as a second
Infallible Voice proceeding from the Vatican, which, when it
has once spoken, must put an end to all strife. Yet nothing
less than this is claimed for it by writers, who yet have bestowed

though we cannot follow him when he adds that ' Errors, after they have found
entrance, may be removed as well as increased in later copies. A careful scribe
may not only make fewer mistakes of his own, but be may correct manifest
faults of the manuscript from which he copies, and avail himself of the testi-
mony of others, so as to revise and improve the text of that on which he chiefly
relies.' Only such a scribe would no longer be a witness for the state of the text
as extant in his generation, but a critical editor, working on principles of his
own, whether good or bad alike unknown to us.

' Very pertinent to this matter is a striking extract from J. G. Keiche (a critic
' remarkable for extent and accuracy of learning, and for soundness and sobi'iety
of judgement,' as Canon Cook vouches, Eevised Version, p. 4), given in Bloom-
field's ' Critical Annotations on the Sacred Text,' p. 5, note : ' In multis san6
W. T. locis lectionis variae, iisque gravissimi argumenti, de vera scripture, judi-
cium firmum et absolutum, quo acquieseere possis, ferri nequit, nisi omnium
subsidiorum nostrorum alicujus auctoritatis suffragia, et interna veri falsique
indicia, diligenter explorata, just^ lance expendantur . . . Quod in causA est, ut
re non satis omni ex parte ciroumspecta, non solum critici tanto'pere inter se
dissentiant, sed etiam singuli sententiam suam toties retractent atque commu-
tent.' In the same spirit Lagarde, speaking of the more recent manuscripts of
the Septuagint, thus protests : ' Certum est eos non a somniis monaohorum
undecimi vel alius cujusquam saeculi natos, sed ex arohetypis uneialibus aut
ipsos aut intercedentibus aliis derivatos. Unde elucet criticum acuto judicio et
doctrina probabili instruotum codicibus recentioribus coUectis effecturum esse (?)
quid in communi plurium aliquorum archetype scriptum fuerit' (Genesis, p. 19).
Compare also Canon Cook, Eevised Version of the First Three Gospels, p. 5.

284 RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.

much thought and labour on this controversy. ' Seeing that
the Vatican manuscript does not contain one single passage that
can be demonstrated to be spurious, or that by the evidence of
other manuscripts and of the context, admits of just doubt as to
its authenticity, a position that no other manuscript enjoys, man
is bound to accept the testimony of that manuscript alone, as
his present text of the sacred record, wherever he possesses its
teaching ^.' I am not sure whether, if we conceded this writer's
premisses, we should be bound to accept his conclusion ; but the
easiest way of disposing of his argument, as well as of that of
persons, who, in heart agreeing with him, would hardly like to
enunciate their principle so broadly, is presently to lay before
the student a few readings of Cod. B, either standing alone, or
supported by ^5 and others, respecting whose authenticity, or
rather genuineness, some of us must be forgiven if we cherish
considerable doubts. It is right, however, to declare that this
discussion is forced upon us through no wish to dissemble the
great value of the Codex Vaticanus, which in common with our
opponents we regard as the most weighty single authority that
we possess, but entirely by way of unavoidable protest against
a claim for supremacy set up in its behalf, which can belong of
right to no existing document whatsoever.

5. But indeed the theories of preceding critics, as well as the
practical application of those theories to the sacred text, have
been thrown into the shade by the more recent and elaborate
publications of Drs. Hort and Westcott, briefly noticed in a pre-
ceding chapter, and claiming in this place our serious attention ^

' ' So extravagant a statement could scarcely be deemed worthy of the elabo-
rate confutation with which Dr. Scrivener has condescended to honour it '
(^Saturday Beview, Aug. 20, 1881). Yet this scheme of ' Comparative Criticism
made easy ' has obtained, for its childlike simplicity, more acceptance than the
reviewer could reasonably suppose. Dr. Hort, of course, speaks very differ-
ently : ' B must be regarded as having presei-ved not Only a very ancient text,
but a very pure line of very ancient text, and that with comparatively small
depravation either by scattered ancient corruptions otherwise attested or by
individualisms of the scribe himself. On the other hand, to take it as the sole
authority except where it contains self-betraying errors, as some have done, is
an unwarrantable abandonment of criticism, and in our opinion inevitably
leads to erroneous results' (Introd. p. 250).

' The textual labours of the Cambridge duumvirate have received all the
fuller considei-ation in the learned world by reason of their authors having been
members of the New Testament Revision Company, in whose deliberations they

WESTCOTT AND HORT. 285

The system on which their text has been constructed has been
vindicated, so far as vindication was possible, in Dr. Hort's
' Introduction,' a, very model of earnest reasoning, calling for and
richly rewarding the close and repeated study of all who would
learn the utmost that can be done for settling the text of the
New Testament on dogmatic principles. The germ of this
theory can be traced in the speculations of Bentley and Gries-
bach ; its authors would confess themselves on many points
disciples of Lachmann, although their process of investigation is
far more artificial than his. But there is little hope for the
stability of their imposing structure, if its foundations have been
laid on the sandy ground of ingenious conjecture: and since
barely the smallest vestige of historical evidence has ever been
alleged in support of the views of these accomplished editors,
their teaching must either be received as intuitively true, or
dismissed from our consideration as precarious, and even
visionary. This much said by way of preface, we will endeavour
to state the principles they advocate, as fairly and concisely as
we can.

(o) The books of the New Testament, even the Holy Gospels
themselves, could not well have been collected into one volume
till some time after the death of St. John. During this early
period, each portion of the inspired record would be circulated
separately, until at length the four Gospels would be brought
together in one book or Quaternion, and, since each component
member had to receive a distinctive appellation, the simplest and

had a real influence, though, as a comparison of their text with that adopted by
the Kevisionists might easily have shown, by no means a preponderating one.
I have carefully studied the chief criticisms which have been published on the
controversy, without materially adding to the acquaintance with the subject
which nearly eleven years of familiar conference with my colleagues had neces-
sarily brought to me. The formidable onslaught on Dr. Hort's and Bishop
Westcott's principles In three articles in the Quarterly Bmm [afterwards published
together with additions in ' The Eevision Revised '] especially in the number for
April, 1882, and Canon F. C. Cook's ' Revised Version of the First Three Gospels '
(1882), must be known to most scholars, and abound with materials from which
a final judgement may be formed. ' The Ely Lectures on the Revised Version of
the N. T.' (1882), which my friend and benefactor Canon Kennedy was pleased
to inscribe to myself, are none the less valuable for their attempt to hold the
balance even between opposite views of the questions at issue. The host of
pamphlets and articles in periodicals which the occasion has called forth could
hardly be enumerated in detail, but some of them have been used with due
acknowledgement in Chap. XII.

286 RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.

the earliest headings would ascribe them to their respective
authors, Kara MarOaiov, Kara MapKOv, k.t.X., the general title of the
four being GvayyiXiov. ' It is quite uncertain to what extent the
whole N. T. was ever included in a single volume in Ante-
Nicene times ' (Hort, Introduction, pp. 223, 268), only that the
Gospels had certainly been collected together when Justin Martyr
wrote his first Apology between A. D. 139 and 150, inasmuch as
he appeals thrice over to the Memoirs of the Apostles, which he
once identifies with the Gospels (ol awooroXot kv rois yevonevoLs vtt'
avT&v aTioiJ,vriiiovevfjia(nv h KaKeirai evayyeXia). Justin's disciple
Tatian, again, composed a Harmony of the Four (Ata Tea-crdpmv),
respecting the precise nature of which we have recently gained
very seasonable information. 'The idea, if not the name, of
a collective " Gospel " is implied throughout the well-known
passage in the third book of Irenaeus, who doubtless received it
from earlier generations' (Hort, p. 321). Hence ifc is not
unreasonable to suspect that our great codices (NABC), which
originally contained the whole N. T., may have been transcribed
in their several parts from copies differing from each other in
genius and in date. With such a possibility before us we ought
not to be perplexed if the character of the text whether of
Cod. A or of Cod. B differs in the Gospels from that which it
bears in the Acts and the Epistles ; or if Cod. C in the Apoca-
lypse, and Cod. A in St. Mark, as has been already explained
under those MSS., appear to belong to a family or group apart
from that of the rest of their respective codices.

(13) At this remote period, during the first half of the second
century, must have originated the wide variations from the
prevailing text on the part of our primary authorities, both
manuscripts and versions, which survive in Cod. Bezae of the
Greek, and in the Old Latin codices or at least in some of them.
The text they exhibit is distinguished as Western, and they
have been joined by a powerful ally, the Curetonian Sjn^iac.
Critics of every school agree in admitting the primitive existence
of this Western recension, and in their estimate of its general
spirit. ' The earliest readings which can be fixed chronologically
belong to it . . . But any prepossessions in its favour that
might be created by this imposing early ascendency are for the
most part soon dissipated by continuous study of its internal

HORT. 287

character' (Hort, p. 120). 'The chief and most constant
characteristic of the Western readings is a love of paraphrase.
Words, clauses, and even whole sentences were changed, omitted,
and inserted with astonishing freedom, wherever it seemed that
the meaning could be brought out with greater force and definite-
ness ' (ibid. p. 122). ' Another equally important characteristic
is a disposition to enrich the text at the cost of its purity by
alterations or additions taken from traditional and perhaps from
apocryphal and other non-biblical sources ' {ibid. p. 123). Espe-
cially may we note among other interpolations the long passage
after Matt. xx. 28 which we cited above, Vol. I. p. 8.

(y) We now come to the feature which distinguishes Dr.
Hort's system from any hitherto propounded ; by the acceptance
or non-acceptance of which his whole edifice must stand or fall.
He seems to exaggerate the force of extant evidence when he
judges that the corrupt Western ' was the more widely-spread
text of Ante-Nicene times ' (ibid. p. 120) ; but he tacitly assumes
that many codices, versions, and ecclesiastical writers remained
free from its malignant influence. The evidence of this latter
class was preserved comparatively pure until the middle of the
third century, when it was taken in hand, at some time between
A. D. 250 and 350, ' at what date it is impossible to say with
confidence, and even for conjecture the materials are scanty '
(ibid. p. 137), by the Syrian bishops and Fathers of the
Patriarchate of Antioch, who undertook (1) 'an authoritative
revision at Antioch ' of the Greek text, wbich (2) was then
taken as a standard for a similar authoritative revision of the
Syriac text, and (3) was itself at a later time subjected to
a second authoritative revision, carrying out more completely
the purposes of the first' (ibid. p. 137). Of this twofold
authoritative revision of the Greek text, of this formal trans-
mutation of the Curetonian Syriac into the Peshitto (for this is
what Dr. Hort means, though his language is a little obscure),
although they must have been of necessity public acts of great
Churches in ages abounding in Councils General or Provincial,
not one trace remains in the history of Christian antiquity ; no
one writer seems conscious that any modification either of the
Greek Scriptures or of the vernacular translation was made in
or before his time. It is as if the Bishops' Bible had been

288 RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.

thrust out of the English Church service and out of the studies
of her divines, and the Bible of 1611 had silently taken its
place, no one knew how, or when, or why, or indeed that any
change whatever had been made. Yet regarding his speculative
conjecture as undubitably true. Dr. Hort proceeds to name the
text as it stood before his imaginary era of transfusion a Pre-
Syrian text, and that into which it was changed, sometimes
Antiochian, more often Syrian''-; while of the latter recension,
though made deliberately, as our author believes, by the authori-
tative voice of the Eastern Church, he does not shrink from
declaring that ' all distinctively Syrian readings must be at once
rejected ' (ibid. p. 119), thus making a clean sweep of all critical
materials, Fathers, versions, manuscripts uncial or cursive, com-
prising about nineteen-twentieths of the whole mass, which do
not correspond with his preconceived opinion of what a correct
text ought to be {ibid. p. 163).

(8) But one or two steps yet remain in this thorough
elimination of useless elements. A few authorities still survive
which are honoured as Pre-Syrian, and continued unaffected
by the phantom revisions, which, for critical purposes, have
reduced their colleagues to ignominious silence. Besides the
Western, Dr. Hort has in reserve' two other groups, the Alex-
andrian and the Neutral. The former retains a text essentially
pure from Syrian (though not from Western) mixture, but its
component members are portentously few in number, being
tolerably void of corruption as regards the substance, with ' no
incorporation of matter extraneous to the canonical text of
the Bible, and no habitual or extreme license of paraphrase . . .
the changes made having usually more to do with language than
with matter, and being marked by an effort after correctness
of phrase' (ibid. p. 131). There are no unmixed vouchers for
this Non- Western, Pre-Syrian, Alexandrian class, though Cyril
of Alexandria seems to come the nearest to purity (ibid. p. 141),

' We are concerned not with names but with things, so that Dr. Hort may
give his ignis fatuus what appellation he likes, only why he calls it Syrian it is
hard to determine. The notices connecting his imaginary revision with Lucian
■of Antiooh which we have given above he feels to be insufficient, for he says no
more than that ' the conjecture derives some little support from a passage of
.Jerome, which is not itself discredited by the precariousness of the modern
theoi'ies which have been suggested by it' (Hort, p. 138).

HORT. 289

then Origen, occasionally other Alexandrian Fathers, also the
Sahidic, and especially the Bohairic version {ibid. p. 131).
No extant MS. has preserved so many Alexandrian readings as
Cod. L (ihid. p. 153). Cod. C has some, T and H more : in the
Gospels they are chiefly marked by the combination t^CLXZ, 33
(ibid. p. 166). In Cod. A, for the Acts and Epistles, the
Alexandrian outnumber both the Syrian and Western readings
(Hort, p. 152), but they all are mere degenerations so far as
they depart from Dr. Hort's standard

(e) The Neutral type of text : so called because it is free
from the glaring corruption of the Western, from the smooth
assimilations of the Syrian, and from the grammatical purism of
the Alexandrian. Only two documents come under this last
head, Codd. B and i>^, and of these two, when they differ, B is
preferable to N, which has a not inconsiderable Western element,
besides that the scribe's bold and rough manner has rendered
' all the ordinary lapses due to rapid and careless transcription
more numerous ' than in B (ibid. p. 246). Yet, with certain
slight exceptions which he carefully specifies, it is our learned
author's belief ' (1) that the readings of ^5B should be accepted
as the true readings until strong internal evidence is found to
the contrary, and (2) that no readings of i^B can safely be
rejected absolutely, though it is sometimes right to place them
only on an alternative footing, especially where they receive no
support from Versions and Fathers ' {ibid. p. 225) : and this their
pre-eminence, in our critic's judgement, ' is due to the extreme,
and, as it were, primordial antiquity of the common original
from which the ancestries of the two MSS. have diverged, the
date of which cannot be later than the earlier part of the second
century, and may well be yet earlier ' {ibid. p. 223).

That t>5B should thus lift up their heads against all the world
is much, especially having regard to the fact that several versions
and not a few Fathers are older than they : for, while we grant
that a simple patristic citation, standing by itself, is of little
value, yet when the context or current of exposition renders it
clear what reading these writers had before them, they must
surely for that passage be equivalent as authorities to a manu-
script of their own age. Nor will Dr. Hort allow us to make
any deduction from the weight of the .united testimony of HB

VOL. II. u

2gO RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.

by reason of the curious fact, demonstrated as well to his satis-
faction (Hort, p. 213) as to our own, that the scribe of B
was the actual writer of parts of three distinct quires,
forming three pairs of conjugate leaves of fr^ {see above, p. 96,
note 1) ; but on this head we think he will find few readers to
agree with him. His devotion to Cod. B when it stands alone
is of necessity far more intelligent than that of the unnamed
writer mentioned already, yet we believe that his implied
confidence is scarcely the less misplaced. He is very glad when
he can to find friends for his favourite, and discusses with great
care the several binary combinations, such as BL, BC, BT, BH,
BD (which last, indeed, is unsafe enough), AB, BZ, B 33 or BA
(for St. Mark) in the Gospels ; AB, BC, &c., in the rest of the
N. T. (Hort, p. 227). He does not disparage the subsingular
readings of B, meaning by this convenient, perhaps novel, term,
the agreement of B with 'inferior Greek MSS., Versions, or
Fathers, or combinations of documentary evidence of these
kinds ' (ibid. p. 230). But, when the worst comes to the worst,
and Cod. B is left absolutely alone, its advocates need not
despair, inasmuch as no readings of that manuscript, not
involving clerical error (and ' the scribe reached by no means
a high standard of accuracy,' ibid. p. 233), must be lightly or
hastily rejected, so powerfully do they commend themselves on
their own merits (ibid. p. 238). This transcendent excellency,
however, belongs to it chiefly in the Gospels. In the Acts and
Catholic Epistles, if the value of A increases as has been said,
that of B is somewhat diminished ; while in the Pauline Epistles
a ' local Western element of B ' (Hort, p. 240) brings it into the
less reputable company of DFG or even of D alone. Hence in
the formation of Westcott and Hort's Pauline text we sometimes
meet with what appears the paradoxical result that the evidence
of B alone is accepted, while that of B attended by other codices
is laid aside as insufficient.

It is very instructive to compare the foregoing sketch of
Dr. Hort's system, brief and inadequate, yet not we trust unfair,
as it is, with the theory of Griesbach, for whose labours and
genius we share much of his successor's veneration. As regards
the modification of text called Western their views are nearly
identical^ only that Griesbach was necessarily ignorant of such
important constituents of it as the Curetonian Syriac and the

HORT. 291

Old Latin codices which have come to light since his day, and
thus was exempted from the temptation to which Dr. Hort has
unhappily yielded, of believing that Codd. l^B, with all their
comparative purity, represent a primitive text already corrupted
by certain accretions from which the Western copies were free
(see below, p. 299 and note 1): a violent supposition which
seriously impairs the homogeneousness and self-consistency of
his whole argument (Hort, pp. 175-6). Griesbach's Alexandrian
class includes not only that which Dr. Hort understands by the
name, but the later critic's Neutral class also, which indeed we
fail to distinguish from the other by any marked peculiar
characteristics. The more mixed text which Griesbach called
Constantinopolitan, and which is represented by Cod. A in the
Gospels, in part by Cod. C, the Latin Vulgate, and later
authorities, differs from Dr. Hort's Syrian in much more than
name. Wider and deeper researches have made it evident that
Griesbach's notion of a gradual modernizing of the text used
from the fourth century downwards in the Patriarchate of
Constantinople, would not adequately account for the phenomena
wherewith we have to deal. The general, almost universal,
prevalence of such a departure from the readings of NB, met
with in ecclesiastical writers at least as early in date as the
parchment of those manuscripts themselves, can be explained by
nothing less than a comprehensive, deliberate, authoritative
recension of the sacred books, undertaken by the chief rulers of
the Antiochene Church, accepted throughout that great Patri-
archate, yet, in spite of all this, never noticed even in the way of
passing reference by writers of any description from that period
onwards, until its consequences, not its process, became known
to eminent critics in the latter half of the nineteenth century.
Nothing less than the exigency of his case could have driven
our author to encumber himself with a scheme fraught with
difficulties too great even for his skill to overcome.

Dr. Hort's system, therefore, is entirely destitute of historical
foundation^. He does not so much as make a show of pre-
tending to it: but then he would persuade us, as he has persuaded
himself, that its substantial truth is proved by results ; and for
results of themselves to establish so very much, they must needs
be unequivocal, and admit of no logical escape from the con-
' See Burgon's ' The Revision Revised,' pp. 271-288.

u a

292 RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.

elusions they lead up to. But is this really the case 1 ' Two
Members of the New Testament Company' of Eevisers, in
a temperate and very able pamphlet, have answered in the
affirmative, and have assigned, after Dr. Hort, but with greater
precision than he, three reasons ' for the belief that the Syrian
text is posterior in origin to those which he calls Western,
Alexandrian, and Neutral ' (The Revisers and the Greek text of
the N. T., p. 25). Granting for our present purpose the reality
of this Syrian text, of whose independent existence we have
no direct proof whatever, let us see what the three reasons will
amount to.

(a) ' The first reason appears to us almost sufficient to settle
the question by itself. It is founded on the observation . . . that
the Syrian text presents numerous instances of readings which,,
according to all textual probability, must be considered to be
combinations of early readings stiU extant.' . . . ' The reader
will find in Dr. Hort's own pages abundant illustration of the
fact in eight examples rigorously analyzed, which seem to supply
a proof, as positive as the subject admits, that Syrian readings
are posterior both to Western readings, and to other readings
which may be properly described as Neutral ' [ibid. pp. 25-6).
But the misfortune is that the subject does not admit of positive
proof; that what appears to one scholar 'textual probability,'
appears to another a mere begging of the whole question. These
eight examples have been re-analyzed by Canon Cook (Revised
Version, pp. 205-18), and just before him by the Quarterly
Reviewer (Revision Revised, pp. 258-65), writers not destitute
either of learning or of natural acuteness, who would fain lead us
to draw directly opposite inferences from Dr. Hort's. We will
take but one specimen, the eighth and last, to make our meaning
as clear as possible. ' This simple instance,' says Dr. Hort
complacently, 'needs no explanation' (Hort, p. 104).

Luke xxiv. 53. koI ■^aav biairavrds iv t(S Upu, aii'oCiires koi
evXoyovvTes rbv 0eoV. Thus it stands in the Received text
with AC**FHKMSUVXrAAn, all cursives, even those most
esteemed by Westcott and Hort, with cfg, the Vulgate, Peshitto
and Harkleian Syriac, the Armenian, and Ethiopic virtually
{evKoyovvTis KoX aivovvres tov Qeov). This is called the Syrian
reading.

HORT. 293

The two so-termed Pre-Syrian forms are,

om. alvovvTes ical NBCL*, Bohairic (Hort), Jerusalem Syriac.
This is the Neutral and Alexandrian text.

om. Koi fvXoyovvTes D, abeffl, gat. bodl., Bohairic (Tischen-
dorf ). This is the Western text.

The assumption of course is that the Syrian reading is a con-
flation of those of the other two classes, so forming a full
but not overburdened clause. But if this praejudicium be
met with the plea that D and the Latins perpetually, B and
its allies very often, seek to abridge the sacred original, it would
be hard to demonstrate that the latter explanation is more
improbable than the former. Beyond this point of subjective
feeling the matter cannot well be carried, whether on one side
or the other.

Dr. Hort's other examples of conflation have the same double
edge as Luke xxiv. 53^ and there is no doubt that Dr. Sanday is
right in asserting that like instances may be found wheresoever
they are looked for ; but they prove nothing to any one who has
not made up his mind beforehand as to what the reading ought
to be. We have already confessed that there is a tendency on
the part of copyists to assimilate the narratives of the several
Gospels to each other ; and that such Harmonies as that of
Tatian would facilitate the process ; that synonymous words are
liable to be exchanged and harsh constructions supplied. Part
of the value of the older codices arises from their comparative
freedom from such corrections: but then this modernizing
process is on the part of copyists unsystematic, almost uncon-
scious ; it is wholly different from the deliberate formal emenda-
tions implied throughout Dr. Hort'.s volume.

0) The second reason adduced by the Two Revisers ' is
almost equally cogent' in their estimation. It is that while
the Ante-Nicene Fathers ' place before us from separate and
in some cases widely distant countries examples of Western,
Alexandrian, and Neutral readings, it appears to be certain that
before the middle of the third century we have no historical
traces of readings which can properly be entitled distinctively
Syrian ' (The Eevisers, &c., p. 26). Now the middle of the
third century is the earliest period assigned by Dr. Hort for the
inception of his phantom scheme of Syrian revision, and we feel

294 RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.

sure that the epoch of Patristic evidence was not put thus early,
in order to exclude Origen, whose support of his Alexandrian
readings Griesbach found so partial and precarious (see above,
p. 226). In fact Dr. Hoi-t expressly states that 'The only
period for which we have anything like a sufficiency of repre-
sentative knowledge consists roughly of three-quarters of
a century from about 175 to 250 : but the remains of four
eminent Greek Fathers, which range through this period, cast
a strong light on textual history backward and forward. They
are Irenaeus, of Asia Minor, Eome, and Lyons ; his disciple
Hippolytus, of Rome ; Clement, of Athens and Alexandria ; and
his disciple, Origen, of Alexandria and Palestine ' (Hort, p. 112).
Even if the extant writings of these Fathers had been as
rigorously examined and as thoroughly known as they certainly
are not, ' their scantiness and the comparative vagueness of the
textual materials contained in them' (ibid.) would hinder our
drawing at present any positive conclusions regarding the sacred
text as known to them. Even the slender specimens of con-
troverted readings collected in our Chap. XII would suffice to
prove that their evidence is by no means exclusively favourable
to Dr. Hort's opinions, a fact for which we will allege but one
instance out of many, the support given to the Received text by
Hippolj'tus in that grand passage, John iii. 13 ^.

There are three considerable works relating to the criticism
of the N. T. still open to the enterprise of scholars, and they can
hardly be taken up at all except by the fresh hopefulness of
scholars yet young. We need a fuller and mox-e comprehensive
collation of the cursive manuscripts (Hort, pp. 76-7) : ' a com-
plete collection of all the fragments of the Thebaic New Testa-
ment is now the most pressing want in the province of textual
criticism,' writes Bp. Lightfoot, and he might have added
a better edition of the Bohairic also : but for the demands of the
present controversy we must set in the first rank the necessity
for a complete survey of the Patristic literature of the first five
centuries at the least. While we concede to Dr. Hort that as

' other examples may he seen in our notes in Chap. XII on Luke ii. 14 for
Methodius ; Luke xxii. 43, 44 for Hippolytus again ; Luke xxiii. 34 for Irenaeus
and Origen. Add Luke x. 1 for Irenaeus (p. 546, note 1) ; xxiii. 45 (Hippolytus) ;
John xiii. 24 (Clem. Alex.) ; a Cor. xii. 7 (Iren. Orig.) ; Mark xvi. 17, 18 (Hippol.).
See also Miller's ' Textual Guide,' pp. 84, 85, where 165 passages on fifteen texts
are gathered from writers before St. Chrysostom.

HORT. 295

a rule ' negative patristic evidence ' — that derived from the mere
silence of the writer, ' is of no force at all ' (Hort, p. 201), and
attach very slight importance to citations which are not express,
it is from this source that we must look for any stable decision
regarding the comparative purity in reference to the sacred
autographs of the several classes of documents which have
passed under our review.

(y) Hence the second reason for supporting the text of
Westcott and Hort urged by the Two Revisers relates to an
investigation of facts hitherto but partially ascertained : the
third, like the first, involves only matters of opinion, in which
individual judgements and prepossessions bear the chief part.
' Yet a third reason is supplied by Internal Evidence, or, in
other words, by considerations. . .of intrinsic or of Transcrip-
tional Probability' (The Revisers &c., p. 26): and 'here,' they
very justly add, 'it is obvious that we enter at once into
a very delicate and difficult domain of textual criticism, and can
only draw our conclusions with the utmost circumspection and
reserve ' (ibid.). On the subject of Internal Evidence enough for
our present purpose has been said^ and Dr. Hort's Transcriptional
head appears to be Bp. Ellicott's paradiplomatic under a more
convenient name. Our author's discussion of what he calls the
' rudimental criticism ' of Internal evidence (Hort, Part ii.
pp. 19-72), if necessarily somewhat abstruse, is one of the most
elaborate and interesting in his admirable volume. It is some-
times said that all reasoning is analytical, not synthetical ; the
reducing a foregone conclusion to the first principles on which it
rests, rather than the building upon those first principles the
materials wherewith to construct the conclusion. Of this portion
of Dr. Hort's labours the dictum is emphatically true. Cod. B
and its characteristic peculiarities are never out of the author's
mind, and those lines of thought are closely followed which
most readily lead up to the theory of that manuscript's practical
impeccability. We allege this statement in no disparaging
spirit, and it may be that Dr. Hort wiU not wholly disagree
with us. Not only is he duly sensible of the precariousness of
Intrinsic evidence, inasmuch as ' the uncertainty of the decision
in ordinary cases is shown by the great diversity of judgement
which is actually found to exist' (Hort, p. 31), but he boldly,

296 RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.

and no less boldly than truly, intimates that in such cases the
ultimate decision must rest with the individual critic : ' in almost
all texts variations occur where personal judgement inevitably
takes a large part in the final decision . . . Different minds will be
impressed by different parts of the evidence as clearer than the
rest, and so virtually ruling the rest : here therefore personal
discernment would seem the surest ground for confidence '
(ibid. p. 65). For the critic's confidence perhaps, not for that of
his reader.

The process of grouping authorities, whether by considerations
of their geographical distribution or (more uncertainly) according
to their genealogy as inferred from internal considerations
{ibid. pp. 49-65), occupies a large measure of Dr. Hort's attention.
The idea has not indeed originated with him, and its occasional
value will be frankly acknowledged in the ensuing pages, so that
on this head we need not further enlarge. In conclusion we
will say, that the more our Cambridge Professor's ' Introduction '
is studied the more it grows upon our esteem for fulness of
learning, for patience of research, for keenness of intellectual
power, and especially for a certain marvellous readiness in
accounting after some fashion for every new phenomenon which
occurs, however apparently adverse to the acceptance of his own
theory. With all our reverence for his genius, and gratitude for
much that we have learnt from him in the course of our studies,
we are compelled to repeat as emphatically as ever our strong
conviction that the hypothesis to whose proof he has devoted so
many laborious years, is destitute not only of historical
foundation, but of all probability resulting from the internal
goodness of the text which its adoption would force upon us ^.

This last assertion we will try to verify by subjoining a select

' For reasons which will be readily understood, we have quoted sparingly
from the trenchant article in the Quarterly Review, April, 1882, but the following
summary of the consequences of a too exclusive devotion to Codd. NB seems no
tmfit comment on the facts of the case : ' Thus it would appear that the Truth of
Scripture has run a very narrow risk of being lost for ever to mankind. Dr. Hort
contends that it more than half lay perdu on a forgotten shelf in the Vatican
Library ; — Dr. Tischendorf that it had found its way into a waste-paper basket in
the convent of St. Catherine at the foot of Mount Sinai — from which he rescued
it on February 4, 1859 : — neither, we venture to think, a very likely supposition.
We incline to believe that the Author of Scripture hath not by any means
shown Himself so unmindful of the safety of the Deposit, as these learned
persons imagine ' (p. 365). The Revision Revised, p. 343.

THE TRUE VIEW. 297

number of those many passages in the N. T. wherein the two
great , codices N and B, one or both of them, are witnesses for
readings, nearly all of which, to the best of our judgement, are
corruptions of the sacred originals ^.

6. Those who devote themselves to the criticism of the text
of the New Testament have only of late come to understand the
full importance of attending closely to the mutual connexion
subsisting between their several materials of every description,
whether manuscripts, versions, or Fathers. The study of
grouping has been recently and not untruly said to be the
foundation of all enduring criticism ^. Now that theories about
the formal recensions of whole classes of these documents have
generally been given up as purely visionary, and the very word
families has come into disrepute by reason of the exploded
fancies it recalls, we can discern not the less clearly that certain
groups of them have in common not only a general resemblance
in regard to the readings they exhibit, but characteristic
peculiarities attaching themselves to each group. Systematic
or wilful corruption of the sacred text, at least on a scale worth
taking into account, there would seem to have been almost
none ; yet the tendency to licentious paraphrase and unwarranted
additions distinguished one set of our witnesses from the second
century downwards ; a bias towards grammatical and critical
purism and needless omissions appertained to another; while

' See Appendix of passages at the end of this chapter. Yet while refusing
without hesitation the claim of the monsira which follow to be regarded as a part
of the sacred text, we are by no means insensible to the fact impressed upon us
by the Dean of Llandaff, that there are readings which conciliate favour the
more we think over them : it being the special privilege of Truth always to
grow upon candid minds. We subjoin his persuasive words : ' It is deeply
interesting to take note of the process of thought and feeling which attends in
one's own mind the presentation of some unfamiliar reading. At first sight the
suggestion is repelled as unintelligible, startling, almost shocking. By degrees,
light dawns upon it — it finds its plea and its palliation. At last, in many
instances, it is accepted as adding force and beauty to the context, and a convic-
tion gradually forms itself that thus and not otherwise was it written.' (Vaughan,
Epistle to Romans, Preface to the third edition, p. xxi.)

^ Thus far we are in agreement with the ' Two Members of the N. T. Company,'
however widely we may differ from their general views : ' The great contribu-
tion of our own times to a mastery over materials has been the clearer state-
ment of the method of genealogy, and, by means of it, the corrected distribution
of the great mass of documentary evidence ' (p. 19). Only that arbitrary
theories ought to be kept as far as possible out of sight.

298 RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.

a third was only too apt to soften what might seem harsh, to
smooth over difficulties, -and to bring passages, especially of the
Synoptic Gospels, into unnatural harmony with each other. All
these changes appear to have been going on without notice
during the whole of the third and fourth centuries, and except
that the great name of Origen is associated (not always happily)
with one class of them, were rather the work of transcribers
than of scholars. Eusebius and Jerome, in their judgements
about Scripture texts, are more the echoes of Origen than
independent investigators.

Now, as a first approximation to the actual state of the
case, the several classes of changes which we have enumerated
admit of a certain rude geographical distribution, one of them
appertaining to Western Christendom and the earliest Fathers
of the African and Gallic Churches (including North Italy
under the latter appellation) ; a second to Egypt and its
neighbourhood ; the third originally to Syria and Christian
Antioch, in later times to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
We have here, no doubt, much to remind us of Griesbach and
his scheme of triple recensions, but with this broad distinction
between his conclusions and those of modern critics, that
whereas he regarded the existence of his families as a patent
fact, and grounded upon it precise and mechanical rules for the
arrangement of the text, we are now content to perceive no more
than unconscious tendencies, liable to be modified or diverted
by a thousand occult influences, of which in each single case it is
impossible to form an estimate beforehand. Even that marked
bias in the direction of adding to the record, which is the
reproach of Codex Bezae and some of its compeers, and renders
the text of the Acts as exhibited by DE, by the cursive 137, and
the margin of the Harkleian Syriac, as unlike that commonly read
as can well be imagined^, is mixed up with a proneness to omissions
which we should look for rather from another class of documents
(e. g. the rejection of ■fevbofj.evoi Matt. v. 11), and which in the
latter part of St. Luke's Gospel almost suggests the idea of
representing an earlier edition than that now in ordinary use,

' So that we may be sure what we should have found in Cod. D. and with
high probability in Cod. E, were they not defective, when in Acta xxvii. 5 we
observe Si' ijiiepSiv SfK&Ttevre inserted after SiankiiaavTfs in 187. 184, and the
Harkleian margin with an asterisk ; as also when we note in Acts xxviii. 16
«£(u T^s TTapf/iPoK^s before aiv in the last two and in demid.

THE TRUE VIEW. 299

yet proceeding from the EvaDgelist's own hand (see p. 18) ^
Again, the process whereby the rough places are made plain and
abrupt constructions rounded, is abundantly exemplified in the
readings of the great uncial A, supported as it is by the mass of
later manuscripts (e. g. Mark i. 27 ; Acts xv. 17, 18 ; xx. 24) ;
yet in innumerable instances (see Appendix to this chapter)
these self-same codices retain the genuine text of the sacred
writers which their more illustrious compeers have lost or
impaired.

Hence it follows that in judging of the character of a various
reading proposed for our acceptance, we must carefully mark
whether it comes to us from many directions or from one. And
herein the native country of the several documents, even when
we can make sure of it, is only a precarious guide. If the
Ethiopic or the Armenian versions have really been corrected by
the Latin Vulgate, the geographical remoteness of their origin
must go for nothing where they agree with the latter version.
The relation in which Cod. L and the Bohairic version stand
to Cod. B is too close to 3,llow them their full value as inde-
pendent witnesses unless when they are at variance with that
great uncial, wheresoever it may have been written : the same
might be said of the beautiful Latin fragment k from Bobbio.
To whatever nations they belong, their resemblances are too
strong and perpetual not to compel us to withhold from them
a part of the consideration their concord would otherwise lay
claim to. The same is incontestably the case with the Curetonian
and margin of the Harkleian Syriac in connexion with Cod. D.
Wide as is the region which separates Syria from Gaul, there

' E. g. Luke xxiT. 8 toB xvpiov irjaov omitted by D, a b eff' I ; ver. 6 ouk iariv
SiSe aWd ^yipSTj (comp. Mark xTi. 6), omitted by the same ; ver. 9 diro to5 /iv^iieiou
by the same, by c and the Armenian ; the whole of ver. 12, by the same (except
ff') with fuld., but surely not by the Jerusalem Syriae, even according to
Tischendorf s showing, or by Eusebius' canon, for he knew the verse well (comp.
John XX. 5); ver. 36 koI \4yft airoTs, tiprivrj vjuv omitted hy D,abeff'l as
before (comp. John xx. 19, 26) ; the whole of ver. 40, omitted by the same and by
Cureton's Syriae (comp. John xx. 20) ; ver. 51 «ai avKpipero eis rdv ovpavov and
ver. 52 wpoaxwriaavres airSv omitted by the same and by Augustine, the impor-
tant clause in ver. 51 by N* also, and consequently by Tischendorf. Yet, as if
to show how mixed the evidence is, D deserts a bff^ I when, in company with
a host of authorities, both manuscripts and versions (/g, Vulgate, Bohairic,
Syriac, and others), they annex «al dv6 niMaaiov xrjplov to the end of ver. 42.
See also Luke x. 41, 42 ; xxii. 19, 20, discussed in Chap. XII.

300 RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.

must have been in very early times some remote communication
by which the stream of Eastern testimony or tradition, like
another Alpheus, rose up again with fresh strength to ii"rigate
the regions of the distant West. The Peshitto Syriac leans at
times in the same direction, although both in nation and character
it most assimilates to the same class as Cod. A.

With these, and it may be with some further reservations
which experience and study shall hereafter suggest, the prin-
ciple of grouping must be acknowledged to be a sound one, and
those lines of evidence to be least likely to lead us astray which
converge from the most varied quarters to the same point. It
is strange, but not more strange than needful, that we are com-
pelled in the cause of truth to make one ' stipulation more :
namely, that this rule be henceforth applied impartially in all
cases, as well when it will tell in favour of the Received text,
as when it shall help to set it aside. To assign a. high value to
cursive manuscripts of the best description (such as 1, 33, 69,
157, Evst. 259, or 61 of the Acts), and to such uncials as LRA, or
even as t^ or C, whensoever they happen to agree with Cod. B,
and to treat their refined silver as though it had been suddenly
transmuted into dross when they come to contradict it, is a prac-
tice too plainly unreasonable to admit of serious defence, and
can only lead to results which those who uphold it would be
the first to deplore^.

7. It is hoped that the general issue of the foregoing discus^
sion may now be embodied in these four practical rules '■^ : —

(1) That the true readings of the Greek New Testament cannot
safely be derived from any one set of authorities, whether
manuscripts, versions, or Fathers, but ought to be the result of

^ So of certain of the chief versions we sometimes hear it said that they are
less important in the rest of the N. T. than in the Gospels ; which means that
in the former they side less with NB.

' Canon Kennedy, whose ' Ely Lectures ' exhibit, to say the least, no prejudice
against the principles enunciated in Dr. Hort's Introduction, is good enough to
commend the four rules here set forth to the attention of his readers (p. 169,
note). The first three were stated in my first edition 1,1861), the fourth added
in the second edition (1874), and, while they will not satisfy the advocates of
extreme views on either side, suffice to intimate the terms on which the respec-
tive claims of the uncial and cursive manuscripts, of the earlier and the more
recent authorities, may, in my deliberate judgement, be equitably adjusted.

THE TRUE VIEW. 30I

a patient comparison and careful estimate of the evidence sup-
plied by them all.

(2) That where there is a real agreement between all docu-
ments containing the Gospels up to the sixth century, and in
other parts of the New Testament up to the ninth, the testimony
of later manuscripts and versions, though not to be rejected
unheard, must be regarded with great suspicion, and, unless
UPHELD BT STRONG INTERNAL EVIDENCE, can hardly be adopted ^

(3) That where the more ancient documents are at variance
with each other, the later uncial and cursive copies, especially
those of approved merit, are of real importance, as being the
surviving representatives of other codices, very probably as
early, perhaps even earlier, than any now extant ^-

(4) That in weighing conflicting evidence we must assign
the highest value not to those readings which are attested by
the greatest number of witnesses, but to those which come to
us from several remote and independent sources, and which
bear the least likeness to each other in respect to genius and
general character.

'■ Dean Burgon held that too much deference ia here paid to the mere
antiquity of those which happen to be the oldest MSS., but are not the oldest
authorities. He would therefore enlarge the grounds of judgement.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER X.

Matt. vi. 8. The transparent gloss 6 6e6s is inserted before 6 itaTrjp
vfimv by Codd. i^*B and the Sahidic version '.

Ver. 22. 'O "Kiy^vos Tov a-iifiaTos icrnv 6 6(f>6a\ii6s <TUV B, ah cff^ n'"^

hi, the printed Vulgate, some Latin writers, and the Ethiopic. The
addition of o-ou is more strongly attested in Luke xi. 34 by S*ABCDM,
but is intolerable in either place.

Matt. xvi. 21. 'Airo ToTe ^'p^aro lijaovs xp'o'Tor : SO the first hands of S^
and B, with the Bohairic version only, their very frequent companion.

Matt, xxvii. 28. On the impossible reading of K^BD, a b cff' q, and
a few others, enough has been said in Chap. VII. p. 234.

Ver. 49. We are here brought face to face with the gravest interpo-
lation yet laid to the charge of B, whose tendency is usually in the
opposite direction. Westcott and Hort alone among the editors feel
constrained to insert in the text, though enclosed in their double
brdokets and regarded as ' most probably an interpolation,' a sentence
which neither they nor any other competent scholar can easily believe
that the Evangelist ever wrote ^. After uaa-av aprov are set the follow-
ing words borrowed from John xix. 34, with a slight verbal change, and
representing that the Saviour was pierced before his death : nXXoj 8e

"Ka^av \ny)(r]V evv^ev avTOv ttjv Trkevpdv, Koi e^jfXdev v8a>p Koi al^a. Thus we
read in J^BCLU (which has evdcms before i^rlKBev alpa koI vbmp) T, 5, 48,
67, 115, 127*, five good manuscripts of the Vulgate, Kelts, gat., mm.,
chad., mac-regol., and Oxon., G. C. {not in Bodl.), Harl. 1023 and
1802*, and the margin of 1 E. vi, the Jerusalem Syriac once when the
Lesson occurs, and the Ethiopic. Chrysostom thus read in his copy,
but used the clause with so little reflection that be regarded the Lord as
dead already. Severus of Antioch [d. 539], who himself protested
against this gross corruption, tells us that Cyril of Alexandria as well
as Chrysostom received it. A scholion found in Cod. 72 refers this

addition ety to KaB' itTTOplav evayyeXiov ^w^apov Kal Taridvov Koi aWatv Stai^o-
pav &yi(ov Trarcpav, on the authority of Chrysostom ; and from the unin-
tentional blunders of Harmonists like Tatian such an insertion might
very well have crept in. The marvel is that it found favour so widely
as it did ^

' The hai-mony subsisting between B and the Sahidic in characteristic read-
ings, for which they stand almost or quite alone, is well worth notice : e. g.
Acts xxvii. 87 ; Rom. xiii. 13 ; Col. iii. 6 ; Heb. iii. 2 ; i John ii. 14 ; 20.

' ' The intrinsic evidence seems immoveable against the insertion.' Textual
Criticism of the N. T., B. B. Warfield, D.D., p. 135.

' Yet in Penn's 'Annotations to the Vatican Manuscripts' (18S7) 'The
restoration of this verse to its due place ' is described as ' the most important

ILLUSTRATIVE PASSAGES. 303

Matt, xxviii. 19. ^avTia-avres occurs only in BD (whose Latin has
baptizantes), as though Baptism were to precede instruction in the faith.
Tregelles alone dares to place this reading in the text : Westcott and
Hort have it in their margin.

Mark iii. 14, 16. After noticing the evidence which supported the
corrupt sentence in Matt, xxvii. 49, we are little disposed to accept what
is in substance the same for such feeble ({losses as are afforded us in
these two verses ; namely, ots kuI an-oordXoui divoiiaa-ev after SdiSexa in
ver. 14 (derived from Luke vi. 13), and xai fVoi'jjo-e rois Sm&fKa at the
beginning of ver. 16. Westcott and Hort receive both clauses, Tischen-
dorf only the latter, with i^BC*A and an Ethiopic manuscript: yet the
former, if less likely to be genuine, is the better supported. It is found
in t^BC*A (with some variation), in 13, 28, 69, 124, 238, 346, the
Bohairic, the margin of the Harkleian Syriac, the Ethiopic, the Arabic
of the Polyglott : a goodly array from divers sources to uphold so bad
a reading.

Mark vi. 2. 01 ttoXXoi is read by Westcott and Hort (so Tischendorf)
instead of mXKoi with BL, 13, 28, 69, 346. Three out of the four
cursives belong to Professor Ferrar's group.

Ver. 22. In the room of t^s Ovyarpds aiiTrjs t^s 'HpmStaSos a serious
variation of t^BDLA, 238, 473, 558 is admitted into the text by Westcott
and Hort, Trjs Bvyarpos avTov ( + 7-5s 238, 558) 'HpmSwfioy, thus bringing
St. Mark into direct contradiction with Josephus, who expressly states
that the wretched girl was named Salome, and was the daughter of
Herod Philip by Herodi&,s, who did not leave her husband till after
Salome's birth (Josephus, Antiq., lib. xviii. ch. vi § 4). Add to this the
extreme improbability that even Herod the Tetrarch should have allowed
his own child to degrade herself in such wise as Salome did here, or that
she could not have carried her point with her father without resorting
to licentious allurements. We must therefore regard avrov as certainly
false, while air^s strongly expresses the writer's feeling that even
Herodias could stoop so low, and being used emphatically has so much
offended a few that tliey Omit it altogether. Such are 1, 118, 209, and
some versions (6 cf, the Bohairic, Armenian, Ethiopic, and Gothic) which
did not understand it. Tischendorf was hardly right in adding the
Peshitto to the list *.

Mark ix. 1. &8e t£» for tS>v S8e (eaTrjKorav) is the almost impossible
reading of BD*, ck* {adq n are uncertain), adopted the more readily
by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, because all have the
proper order tZv SSe in Matt. xvi. 28.

Mark xiii. 33. Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort reject
(Tregelles more fitly sets within brackets) koI npoa-evxfo^Be with BD, 122,
and the Latin ack and tol* of the Vulgate only. It is in the favour
of the two words that they cannot have come from the parallel place in

circumstance of this [sc. his own] revision.' Its omission is imputed to ' the
undue influence of a criticism of Origen [tjSt] Sk avrov diroBavovros'], whom Jerome
followed.'

' ' This gross perversion of the truth, alike of Scripture and of history —
a reading as preposterous as it is revolting,' is the vigorous protest of Beaj^
Burgon, The Kevision Eevised, p. 68, note.

304 RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.

St. Matthew (ch. xxiv. 42), nor is the preceding verb the same in
ch. xiv. 38. Here even UliA side against B with AC and all other
authorities, including the Egyptian and most Latin, as well as the
Syriac versions.

Luke iv. 44. The wonderful variation 'lovSaias is brought into the
text of Hort and Westcott, the true reading Ta\i\aias being banished to
their margin. Their change is upheld by a strong phalanx indeed :
NBCLQR, 1, 21, 71, Evst. 222, 259 and some twenty other cui-sives
(Evan. 503 and two Lectionaries read airmv instead of either), the
Bohairic and the text of the Harkleian : authorities enough to prove
anything not in itself impossible, as 'JovSalas is in this place. Not only
is Galilee the scene of the events recorded immediately before and after
the present verse, but the passage is manifestly parallel to Mark i. 39.
The three Synoptic Gospels are broadly distinguished from that of
St. John by their silence respecting the Lord's ministry in Judaea before
He went up to the last passover. Yet Alford in loco, while admitting
that ' our narrative is thus brought into the more startling discrepancy
with that of St. Mark, in which unquestionably the same portion of the
sacred history is related,' most strangely adds, ' Still these are considera-
tions which must not weigh in the least degree with the critic. It is
his province simply to track out what is the sacred text, not what, in
his own feeble and partial judgement, it ought to have been.'

Luke vi. 48. It is surprising how a gloss so frigid as Sia t6 koKSis
ol<ohoiir)(rBai avTrjv could have been accepted by Tischendorf, Tregelles,
Westcott and Hort, in the room of redeXefuaro yap im ttjv nirpav, chiefly,
it may be presumed, because the latter is the expression of St. Matthew
(ch. vii. 25). Yet such is the reading of i^BLH, of the two best cur-
sives 33, 157, of the Bohairic (with some variation in its copies), of the
margin of the Harkleian, atid of Cyril of Alexandria. The Ethiopio
preserves both forms. As the present olnohofiovvri, early in the verse
involves a plain contradiction when compared with the perfect oIkoSo-
prja-dat at the end, Tregelles changes the latter into olKoSofieia-dm on the
feeble authority of the third hand of B, of 33, and possibly of 157.

Luke viii. 40. For airov after wpoaSoKavres we find tow 6e6v in i^ only.
Of course the variation is quite wrong, but it is hard to see the per-
tinency of Dr. Vance Smith's hint {Theological Review, July, 1875) 'that
it cannot have got in by accident.'

Luke X. 1. This case is interesting, as being one wherein B (not N)
is at variance with the very express evidence of the earliest ecclesiastical
writers, while it makes the number of these disciples, not seventy, but
seventy-two ^ With B are DM, also R (' ita enim certfe omnino videtur,'

■ ' Post enim duodecim apostolos septuaginta alios Dominus noster ante se
misisse invenitur ; septuaginta autem neo ootonario numero neque denario '
(Irenaeus, p. 146, Massuet). Tertullian, just a little later (re-echoed by the
younger Cyril), compares the Apostles with the twelve wells at Elim (Ex. xv.
27), the seventy with the three-score and ten palm-trees there (Adv. Marc. iv.
24). So Eusebius thrice, Basil and Ambrose. On the other hand in the Becog-
tiitions of Clement, usually assigned to the second or third century, the number
adopted is seventy-two, ' vel hoc modo reeognita imagine Moysis ' and of his

ILLUSTRATIVE PASSAGES. 305

Tisch., Monum. sacra inedita, vol. ii. Proleg. p. xviii), In the prefixed
table of nrKoi (Vol. I. p. 57, n), its text being lost, Codd. 1, 42, a c eg'-^ 1 1,
the Vulgate, Curetonian Syriac, and Armenian. Lachmann with West-
cott and Hort insert Svo, but within brackets, for the evidence against
it is overwhelming both in number and in weight: namely, Codd.
J^ACEGHKLSUVXrAAHn, all other cursives, bfg of the Old Latin,
the Bohairic, the three other Syriac, the Gothic, and Ethiopic versions.

Luke xiv. 5. Here again we have a strong conviction that J^, though
now in the minority, is more correct than B, supported as the latter is
by a dense array of witnesses of every age and country. In the clause
Tivos vjimv ovos ^ 0oCs of the Received text all the critical editors sub-
stitute vlbs for ovos, which introduces a bathos so tasteless as to be
almost ludicrous ^. Yet uios is found with or without 6 before it in AB
(hiant CF)EGHMSUVrAA, in no less than 125 cursive copies already
cited by name* (also vl6s v/iav Evst. 259), in efg, the Sahidic,
Peshitto and Harkleian ' Syriac versions : Cod. 508 and the Curetonian
combine both forms vlos $ ^ovs rj Svos, and Cod. 215 has vios rj Svos without
povs. Add to these Cyril of Alexandria (whose words are cited in
catenas, as in the scholia to X, 253, 259), Titus of Bostra the commen-
tator, Euthymius, and Theophylaot. For ovos are {^KLXII, 1, 33, 66
seeunM manu, 69 (opos), 71, 207 sec. man., 211, 213, 407, 413, 492, 509,
512, 549, 550, 555, 556, 569, 570, 599, 602, and doubtless others not
cited : also the text of X, 253, 259 in spite of the annexed commentary ;
of the versions abcil of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, Bohairic, Jerusalem
Syriac, Armenian, and Ethiopic (hos eius aut asinus), though the Slavonic
codices and Persic of the Polyglott make for vUs. Cod. 52 (sic) and the
Arabic of the Polyglott omit ovos fj, while D has irpo^arov {pvis d) for ovos
(comp. Matt. xii. 11), and 557 exhibits /3ot)s i) ovos. YC or OIC mistaken
as the contraction for VIOC is a mere guess, and we are safest here in
clinging to common sense against a preponderance of outward evidence.

Luke XV. 21. Here by adding from ver. 19 noirja-ov /le as eva rav
fua-BLav o-ov (placed in the text by Westcott and Hort within brackets)
the great codices t5BD, with UX, 33, 512, 543, 558, 571, a catena, and
four manuscripts of the Vulgate [bodl. gat. mm. tol.), manage to keep
out of sight that delicate touch of true nature which Augustine points
out, that the son never carried out his purpose of offering himself for
a hireling, ' quod post osculum patris generosissime jam dedignatur.'

Luke xvi. 12. It is hard to tell how far thorough scholars and able
critics are prepared to push a favourite theory, when Westcott and Hort
place TO fiiierepov ris 8cB(rEt u/iiv in the text, reserving vnirepov for the
margin. Not to mention that the interchange of 1; and v in these pro-
elders, traditionally set down at that number. Compare Num. xi. 16. Epipha-
nius, Hilary (Scholz), and Augustine are also with Cod. B.

' To enable us to translate ' a son, nay even an ox,' would require ^ Kai,
which none read The argument, moreover, is one a minori ad majm. Compare
Ex. xxi. 83 with Ex. xxiii. 4 ; ch. xiii. 15.

' Let me add ex meo Codd. 22, 219, 492, 547, 549, 558, 559, 576, 582, 584, 594,
596, 597, 598, 601, being no doubt a large majority of cursives. So Cod. 662,
apparently after correction.

' But not in the Beirut MS. discovered in 1877 by Dr. Is. H. Hall,

VOL. IL X

3o6 RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.

nouns is the most obstinate of all known itacisms, and one to which B is
especially prone (e. g. Acts xvii. 28 ; i Pet. ii. 24 ; i John ii. 25 ; iii. 1,
Vol. I. p. 11), fifieTfpov is found only in BL, Evst. 21, and Origen once :
in 157, eil, and in TertuUian twice it is softened down to e/ior.

Luke xxi. 24 : «xp' °^ n\r)pa>6S>(nv [/cat f(TovTaij Kaipol iBvmv. The words
within brackets appear thus in Westcott and Hort's text alone ; what
possible meaning can be assigned to them in the position they there
occupy it is hard to see. They are obviously derived by an error of the
scribe's eye from koi Uctovtw. (the reading of S^BD, &c.) at the beginning
of ver. 25. This unintelligible insertion is due to B ; but L, the
Bohairic, and a codex cited in the Harkleian margin also have it with

another Kaipoi prefixed to kcu ea-ovrai. D runs on thus : axpis oS irKripadainv

Koi ecrovrai arjufia (om. Kcupoi iBvav). Those who discover some recondite
beauty in the reading of B compare with this the genuine addition mi
ia-fifv after k\t}9S>ix€v in i John iii. 1. Nempe amatorem tv/rpia decipiunt
caecum vitia, aut etiam ipsa kaec deleeta/nt.

Luke xxiii. 32. For hepoi 8io KoKovpyoi, which is unobjectionable in
the Greek, though a little hard in a close English translation, i^B and
the two Egyptian versions, followed by Wfestcott and Hort, have the

wholly impossiblfe erepoi KaKoSpyot 8vo.

John ii. 3. The loose paraphrase of Cod. ^5 in place of {xTTepfja-avros
oTi/ou commends itself to no one but Tischendorf, who in his turn admires
the worst deformities of his favourite : it ruUs Koi ohov ovk eixov on
oTiveTeKia-dri 6 olvos ToO yd/wv, in which few readers will be able to discern
with him the manner and style of St. John. The Old Latin a bff^
and Gaudentius [iv] ; also e I, the Ethiopic, and the tnargin of the
Harkleian in part, exhibit thfe same vapid circumlocution. Cod. l^ in
this Gospel, and sometimes elsewhere, has a good deal in common with
the Western codices and Latin Fathers, and some of its glosses are
simply deplorable : e. g. KoKoKayadias for KaKonaBeias, James v. 10 ; awo-
luXovvres for crvvoiKovvTes, I Pet. iii. 7; aito6av6vTos for naOoPTOs, 1 Pet. iv. 1
after ch. ii. 21, where it does not stand alone, as here. Of a better
character is its bold svipplement oiiKKXr/cria before ovvciiKcKTri in i Pet. v. 13,
apparently borrowed froiii primitive tradition, and supported by the
Peshitto, Vulgate (in its best manuscripts and editions), and Armenian
versions.

John iv. 1. After pannCet we find 7 omitted in AB* (though it is
added in what Tischendorf considers an ancient hand, his B^) GLF, 262,
Origen and Epiphanius, but appears in l^CD and all the rest. Tregelles
rejects ^ in his margin, Hort and Westcott put it within brackets. Well
may Dr. Hort say (Notes, p. 76), 'It remains no easy matter to explain
how the verse as it stands can be reasonably understood without ^, or
how such a mere slip as the loss of h after ei should have so much
excellent Greek authority, more especially as the absence of 7 increases
the obvious no less than the real difiiculty of the verse.'

John vii. 39. One of the worst faults a manuscript (the same is not
true of a version) can have is a habit of supplying, either from the margin
or from the scrilse's misplaced ingenuity, some word that may clear up a
difficulty, or limit the writer's meaning. Certainly this is not a common
fault with Cod. B, but we have here a conspicuous example of it. It

ILLUSTRATIVE READINGS. 307

stands almost alone in receiving Bebofiivov after wvevfia : one cursive (254)
has 8o8iv, and so read ab c eff^ 9^^, the Vulgate, the Peshitto, and
the Georgian (Malan, St. John), the Jerusalem Syriac, the Polyglott
Persic, a catena, Eusebius and Origen in a Latin version : the margin
of the Harkleian Syriac makes a yet further addition. The Sahidic,
Ethiopic, and Erpenius' Arabic also supply some word. But the
versions and commentators, like our own English translations, probably
meant no more than a bold exposition. The whole blame of this evident
corruption rests with the two manuscripts. No editor follows B here.

John ix. 4. Most readers will think with Dean Burgon that the
reading fjiias 8« epyd^ea-Bm TO. epya Tov Triii^avTos (whether followed by /le
or ^fias) ' carries with it its own sufficient condemnation ' (Last Twelve
Verses, &c., p. 81). The single or double ^/lar, turning the whole clause
into a general statement, applicable to every one, is found in i^*BDL,
the two Egyptian, Jerusalem Syriac, Erpenius' Arabic, and Koman
Ethiopic versions, in the younger Cyril and the versifier Nonnus.
Origen and Jerome cite the passage as if the reading were cpydffo-fic,
which, by a familiar itadsm (see p. 11), is the reading of the first hand
of B. The first fjiMs is adopted by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and
Hort : the second by Tischendorf alone after i^*L, the Bohairic, Eoman
Ethiopic, Erpenius' Arabic, and Cyril. Certainly /le of BD, the Sahidic,
and Jerusalem Syriac, is very harsh.

John X. 22. For Se after iyivero Westcott and Hort read t6t€ with
BL, 33, the Sahidic, Gothic, Slavonic, and Armenian versions. No
such use of TQTf in this order, and without another particle, will be found
in the New Testament, or easily elsewhere. The Bohairic and gat.
of the Vulgate have 8c rdre, which is a different thing. Moreover,
the sense will not admit so sharp a definition of sameness in time as
ToTf implies. Three months intervened between the feast of Taber-
nacles, in and after which all the events named from ch. vii downwards
took place, and this winter feast of Dedication.

John xviii. 5. For Xiyu airois 6 Irjo-ovs iya> eliu, B and a have
the miserable variation \iyei airois iya> etfu Irjcrovs, which Westcott and
Hort advance to a place in their margin. The first IC (omitting d)
was absorbed in the last syllable of AYTOIC, the second being a mere
repetition of the firstsyllable of ICTHK6I [sicB j>rimd manu). Compare
Vol. I. p. 10. With so little care was this capital document written \

Acts iv. 25. We have here, upheld by nearly all the authorities
to which students usually defer, that which cannot possibly be right,
though critical editors, in mere helplessness, feel obliged to put it in
their text ; d tov iraTpos fjfiSiv 8m nveifiaros dyiov (rrdfiaros SavdB TraiSdr aov
elwaiv. Thus read S^ABE, 13, 15, 27, 29, 36, 38. Apost. 12, a catena
and Athanasius. The Vulgate and Latin Fathers, the Harkleian
Syriac and Armenian versions conspire, but with such wide variations as
only serve to display their perplexity. We have here two several

^ A more ludicrous blunder of Cod. B has been pointed out to me in the Old
Testament, Ps. xvii. 14 ' they have children at their desire ' : ex''P'''*<-6"'^AN
yicoN Cod. A, but exopjAcBHCAN ifeiojN Cod. B. The London papyrus has x<UN
for yicoN.

X 2,

3o8 RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.

readings, either of which might be true, combined into one that cannot.
We might either adopt with D 6s Sia iiv& dyi'ou Sia tov o-toiuitos XaXijo-ai
SavelS natSos <rou (but david puero two d), or better with Didymus 6 Sta
jrvevfiuTos (iyiou (rrofiaTos 6e fiaueiS iraMs aov (lirav (which Will fairly suit
the Peshitto and Bohairic) ; or we might prefer the easier form of the
Eeceived text 6 Sta OTd/iaror Sa^iS tov jraiSoy aov elirav, which has no
support except from P^ and the cursives 1, 31, 40, 220, 221, &c. (the
valuable copy 224 reads 6 Sta roC narpos fnxSiv iv fiaS), and from
Theophylact, Chrysostom being doubtful. Tischendorf justly pleads for
the form he edits that it has second, third, and fourth century authority,
adding ' singula verba praeter morem sed non sine caussa collocata sunt.'
Praeter morem they certainly are, and non sine cwussd too, if this and
like examples shall lead us to a higher style of criticism than will be
attained by setting up one or more of the oldest copies as objects of
unreasonable idolatry.

Acts vii. 46. jrijo-aTO eipfiv o-fciji'to/ia ra Bfm 'laxaff. The portentous
variant o'Um for Sea is adopted by Lachmann, and by Tischendorf, who
observes of it ' minimi sensu caret : ' even Tregelles sets it in the margin,
but Westcott and Hort simply obelize 6fm as if they would read ™ 'loKa^
(compare Psalm xxiv. 6, cxxxii. 5 with Gen. xlix. 24). Yet ouea appears
in N*BDH against N<=ACEP, all cursives (including 13, 31, 61, 220,
221), all versions. Observe also in ch. viii. 5 Kaia-apias in ^5* for (rafmpeias
on account of ver. 40 and ch. xxi. 8.

Acts X. 19. 'iSoii avSpes 8vo is the reading of Westcott and Hort's text
([t/)«s] margin) after B only, the true number being three (ver. 7) :
in ch. xi. 1 1 Epiphanius only has Sio. There might be some grounds for
omitting rpA here, as Tischendorf does, and Tregelles more doubtfully in
his margin (with DHLP, 24, 31, 111, 182, 183, 184, 185, 188, 189,220,
221, 224, m, the later Syriac, the Apostolical Constitutions, the
elder Cyril, Chrysostom and Theophylact, Augustine and Ambrose),
no reason surely for representing the Spirit as speaking only of the

dvo olKerat.

Acts xii. 25. An important passage for our present purpose. That
the two Apostles returned from, not to, Jerusalem is too plain for
argument (ch. xi. 29, 30), yet ds 'lepova-aXrjp, (which in its present order
surely cannot be joined with nXripmcravTfs) is the reading of Westcott and
Hort's text (e^ and the fatal obelus t being in their margin) after
J^BHLP, 61, four of Matthaei's copies, Codd. 2, 4, 14, 24, 26, 34, 64, 78,
80, 95, 224, and perhaps twenty other cursives, but besides these only
the margin of the Harkleian, the Roman Ethiopic, the Polyglott Arabic,
some copies of the Slavonic and of Chrysostom, with Theophylact and
Erasmus' first two editions, who says in his notes ' ita legunt Graeci,'
i.e. his Codd. 2, 4. A few which substitute 'Antioch' for 'Jerusalem'
(28, 38, 66 marg., 67**, 97 marg., Apost. 5) are witnesses for ets, but not
so those which, reading e| or otto, add with the Complutensian els
'AvTtSxemv (E, 7, 14**, 27, 29, 32, 42, 57, 69, 98 marg., 100, 105, 106,

* Codex P 13 of far greater value than others of ita own date. It is frequently
found in the company of B, sometimes alone, sometimes with other chief
authorities, especially in the Catholic Epistles, e. g. James iv. 15 ; v. 4 ; 14 ;
2 Pet. i. 17 (partly) ; ii. 6 ; i John ii. 20.

ILLUSTRATIVE PASSAGES. 309

111, 126**, 182, 183, 186, 220, 221, theSahidic, Peshitto.andErpenius'
Arabic) : Cod. 76 has ds 'Avridx^tav airo 'ifpovrroKrui. C is defective here,
and the only three remaining uncials are divided between ef (A, 13, 27,
29, 69, 214, Apost. 54, Chrysostom sometimes) and diro (DE, 15, 18, 36,
40, 68, 73, 76, 81, 93, 98, 100, 105, 106, 111, 113, 180, 183, 184,
a copy of Chrysostom, and the Vulgate ab). The two Egyptian, the
Peshitto, the Philoxenian text, the Armenian and Pell Piatt's Ethiopio
have ' from,' the only possible sense, in spite of i^B. Tischendorf in
his N. T. Vaticanum 1867 alleges that in that codex ' litterae eio- lepov
prima ut videtur manu rescriptae. Videtur primum arro pro eta- scriptum
fuisse.' But since he did not repeat the statement three years later
in his eighth edition, he may have come to feel doubtful about it.
Dr. Hort conjectures that the original order was rr/v els 'UpovaaKijfi.
irKijpaiTavTes SuiKoviav.

Acts xvii. 28. Here Westcott and Hort place i/uSs in their text,
fipas in the margin. For fipis we find only B, 33, 68, 95, 96, 105, 137,
and rather wonder than otherwise that the itacism is not met with in
more cursives than six. The Bohairic has been cited in error on the
same side. It needs not a word to explain that the stress of St. Paul's
argument rests on Ipus. To the Athenians he quotes not the Hebrew
Scriptures, but the poets of whom they were proud. Compare
Luke xvi. 12, above.

An itacism not quite so gross in ch. xx. 10 pfj Bopv^eiaBm (B*, 185,
224*) is likewise honoured with a place in Westcott and Hort's margin.
In Matt. xi. 1 6 they follow Tischendorf and Tregelles in adopting irepois
for eraipois with BCDZ, and indeed the mass of copies. This last
itacism (for it can be nothing better) was admitted so early as to affect
many of the chief versions.

Acts XX. 30. Cod. B omits airmv after vpav, where it is much wanted,
apparently with no countenance except from Cod. 186, for this is just
a point in which versions (the Sahidic and both Ethiopia) can be little
trusted. The present is one of the countless examples of Cod. B's
inclination to abridge, which in the Old Testament is carried so far as
to eject from the text of the Septuagint words that are, and always must
have been, in the original Hebrew. Westcott and Hort include airav
within brackets.

Acts XXV. 13. Agrippa and Bemice went to Caesarea to greet the
new governor (do-Trao-d/ieyoi), not surely after they had sent their greeting
before them {dtriratrdpevot), which, if it had been a fact, would not have
been worth mentioning. Yet, though the reading is so manifestly false,
the evidence for the aorist seems overwhelming (t^ABHLP, the Greek
of E, 13, 24*, 31, 68, 105, 180, 220, 224*, a few more copies, and the
Coptic and Ethiopic versions). The future is found possibly in C,
certainly in 61, 221, and the mass of cursives, in e and other versions, in
Chrysostom, and in one form of Theophylact's commentary. Here again
Dr. Hort suspects some kind of prior corruption (Notes, p. 100).

Acts xxviii. 13. For irfpieXdovres of all other manuscripts and versions
t^*B have jrepieXovTes, evidently borrowed from oh. xxvii. 40. Even this
vile error of transcription is set in Westcott and Hort's text, the
alternative not even in their margin. In ver. 15 they once set ol withia

3IO RECENT VIEWS OF COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.

brackets ^ on the evidence of B, 96 only. Cod. B is Tery prone to omit
the article, especially, but not exclusively, with proper names.

Eom. vii. 22. The substitution of roi vo6s (cf. ver. 23) for toO deoO
seems peculiar to Cod. B.

Eom. XV. 31. Lachmann and Tregelles (in his margin only) accept
the manifest gloss Sapo<popia for SiaKovia with B (see Vol. I. p. 290 for its
' Western element ') D*FG {d e have remwneratio) and Ambrosiaster
(munerum meorum ministratio). But SiaKow'a is found in SACD"*"^'
and consequently in E (see Vol. I. p. 1 76), /(ministratio), g (administratio),
Vulg. (obsequii mei ablatio), so d***, fuld. and Origen in the Latin
(ministerium), with both Syriac, the Bohairic, Armenian and Ethiopia
versions, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and John Damascene.

I Cor. xiii. 5. Never was a noble speech more cruelly pared down to
a trite commonplace than by the reading of B and Clement of Alexandria
(very expressly) oi fiyrei ra fiij eaurijs, in the place of oi fiJTel TO (or to)
eauT^s of the self-same Clement just as expressly elsewhere (see p. 262
and note 3), and of all other authorities of every description. Here
Westcott and Hort place to (x^ in their margin.

Col. iv. 15. For aiToC Lachmann, Tregelles' margin, Hort and
Westcott have avTrjs from B, 67**, and the text of the later Syriac,
thus implying that yv^(^a is the Doric feminine form, which is very
unlikely.

I Thess. V. 4. Lachmann with Hort and Westcott (but not their
margin) reads /cXeWaj for kXottjjs with AB and the Bohairic, but this
cannot be right.

Heb. vii. 1. For d cwavrria-as Lachmann, Tregelles, Hort and
Westcott's text have os a-wavTrja-as with t<ABC**DEK, 17, a broken
sentence : but this is too much even for Dr. Hort, who says, in the
language habitual to him, that 6 seems ' a right emendation of the Syrian
revisers' (Notes, p. 130).

James i. 17. What can be meant by awoo-Ktacr/iaTor of i^*B it is hard
to say. The versions are not clear as to the sense, but ff alone seems to
suggest the genitive (modicum obvmbrationis). That valuable Cod. 184,
now known only by Sanderson's collation at Lambeth (No. 1255, 10-14)^,
is said by him to add to the end of the verse oiSe mw* virovolai nvbt
vnoPoXfj mroa-KiacTfiaTos, which seems like a scholion on the preceding
clause, and is found also in Cod. 221.

Nor will any one praise certain readings of Cod. B in James i. 9 ;
I Pet. i. 9 ; 11 ; ii. 1 ; 12 ; 25 ; iii. 7 ; 14 ; 18 (cm. t« eea); iv. 1 ; v. 3 ;

' We note many small variations between the text of these critics as com-
municated to the Revisers some years before, and that finally published in 1881.
The latter, of course, we have treated as their standard.

' This precious cursive forms one of a small class which in the Catholic
Epistles and sometimes in the Acts conspire with the best uncials in upholding
readings of the higher type : the other members are 69, 137, 182, to which will
sometimes be added the text or margin of the Harkleian Syriac, Codd. 27, 29,
the second hands of 57 and 66, 100, 180, 185, and particularly 221, which is
of special interest in these Epistles. The following passages, examined by
means of Tischendorf's notes, will prove what is here alleged : 1 Pet. iii. 16 ;
sPet. i. 4; 21; ii. 6; 11; iJohni. 5; 7; 8; ii. 19; iii. 1; 19; 22; iv. 19; v. 5.

ILLUSTRATIVE PASSAGES. 3II

2 Pet. i. 17; i John i. 2 ; ii. 14 ; 20 ; 25 ; 27 ; iii. 15 ; 3 John 4 ; 9 ;
Jude 9, which passages the student may work out for himself.

Enough of the weary and ungracious task of finding fault. The fore-
going list of errors patent in the most ancient codices might be largely
increased : two or three more will occur incidentally in Chapter XII
(i Cor. xiii. 3 ; Phil. ii. 1 ; i Pet. i. 23 ; see also pp. 254, 319). Even
if the reader has not gone with me in every case, more than enough has
been alleged to prove to demonstration that the true and pure text of
the sacred writers is not to be looked for in N or B, in i^B, or BD, or
BL, or any like combination of a select few authorities, but demands, in
every fresh case as it arises, the free and impartial use of every available
source of information. Yet after all. Cod. B is a document of such
value, that it grows by experience even upon those who may have been
a little prejudiced against it by reason of the excessive claims of its too
zealous friends '. Its best associate, in our judgement, is Cod. C, where
the testimony of that precious palimpsest can be had. BC together will
often carry us safe through difficulties of the most complicated character,
as for instance, through that vexatious passage John xiii. 25, 26. Com-
pare also Acts xxvi. 16. Yet even here it is necessary to commend with
reserve : BC stand almost alone in maintaining the ingenious but
improbable variation iKaS»rai in Acts xxvii. 39 {see Chap. XII), and the
frigid gloss Kpivovn in i Pet. iv. 5 : they unite with others in foisting on
St. Matthew's text its worst corruption, ch. xxvii. 49. In Gal. iii. 1, C
against AB contains the gloss rfi aXriffda nfj iretBea-Bai. Again, since no fact
relating to these pursuits is more certain than the absolute independence
of the sources from which A and B are derived, it is manifest that their
occasional agreement is always of the greatest weight, and is little less
than conclusive in those portions of the N. T. where other evidence is
slender in amount or consideration, e.g. i Pet. i. 21 and v. 10 (with the
Vulgate); v. 11 : also supported by those admirable cursives 27, 29, in
I Pet. V. 14 ; I John iv. 3 ; 19 ; 2 John 3 ; 12. See also i John v. 18,
to be discussed in Chap. XII.

' Notice especially those instances in the Catholic Epistles, wherein the
primary authorities are comparatively few, in which Cod. B accords with the
later copies against Codd. f<A(C), and is also supported by internal evidence :
e.g. I Pet. iii. 18 ; iv. 14 ; v. 2 ; 2 Pet. ii. 20 ; i John ii. 10 ; iii. 23, &c. In
I John iii. 21, where the first ^itSiv is omitted by A and others, the second by C
almost alone, B seems right in rejecting the word in both places. So in other
eases internal probabilities occasionally plead strongly in favour of B, when it
has little other support : as in Bom. viii. 24, where tIs eXiri^d ; as against
T(s, Ti Kal iKnl^u ; though B and the margin of Cod. 47 stand alone here, beat
accounts for the existence of other variations (see p. 248). In Eph. v. 22, B
alone, with Clement and Jerome, the latter very expressly, omits the verb in a
manner which can hardly fail to commend itself as representing the true form
of the passage. In Col. iii. 6, B, the Sahidic, the Eoman Ethiopic, Clement
(twice), Cyprian, Ambrosiaster, and auct. de singl. cler., are alone free from the
clause interpolated from Eph. v. 6.

CHAPTER XI.

CONSIDERATIONS DERIVED FROM THE PECULIAR CHARACTER AND

GRAMMATICAL FORM OF THE DIALECT OF THE GREEK

TESTAMENT.

1. TT will not be expected of us to enter in this place upon
■^ the wide subject of the origin, genius, and peculiarities!
whether in respect to grammar or orthography, of that dialect
of the Greek in which the N. T. was written, except so far as it
bears directly upon the criticism of the sacred volume. Ques-
tions, however, are perpetually arising, when we come to examine
the oldest manuscripts of Scripture, which cannot be resolved
unless we bear in mind the leading particulars wherein the
diction of the Evangelists and Apostles differs not only from that
of pure classical models, but also of their own contemporaries
who composed in the Greek language, or used it as their ordinary
tongue.

2. The Greek style of the N. T., then, is the result of blending
two independent elements, the debased vernacular speech of the
age, and that strange modification of the Alexandrian dialect
which first appeared in the Septuagint version of the Old
Testament, and which, from their habitual use of that version,
had become familiar to the Jews in all nations under heaven ;
and was the more readily adopted by those whose native lan-
guage was Aramaean, from its profuse employment of Hebrew
idioms and forms of expression. It is to this latter, the Greek of
the Septuagint, of the Apocalypse, and of the foreign Jews, that
the name oi Hellenistic (Acts vi. 1) strictly, applies. St. Paul,
who was born in a pure Greek city (Juvenal, iii. 114-118) ;

ORTHOGRAPHY. 3I3

perhaps even St. Luke, whose original writings ^ savour strongly
of Demosthenes and Polybius, cannot be said to have affected the
Hellenic, which they must have heard and spoken from their
cradles. Without denying that the Septuagint translation
and (by reason of their long sojourning in Palestine) even
Syriac phraseology would powerfully influence the style of
these inspired penmen, it is not chiefly from these sources that
their writings must be illustrated, but rather from the kind
of Greek current during their lifetime in Hellenic cities and
colonies.

3. Hence may be seen the exceeding practical difficulty of
fixing the orthography, or even the grammatical forms, prevailing
in the Greek Testament, a difficulty arising not only from the
fluctuation of manuscript authorities, but even more from the
varying circumstances of the respective authors. To St. John,
for example, Greek must have been an alien tongue ; the very
construction of his sentences and the subtil current of his
thoughts amidst all his simplicity of mere diction, render it
evident (even could we forget the style of his Apocalypse) that
he thought in Aramaean: divergences from the common Greek
type might be looked for in him and in those Apostles whose
situation resembled his, which it is very unlikely would be
adopted by Paul of Tarsus. Bearing these facts always in mind
(for the style of the New Testament is too apt to be treated
as an uniform whole), we will proceed to discuss briefly, yet as
distinctly as may be, a few out of the many perplexities of this
description to which the study of the original codices at once
introduces us^.

' Viz. Luke i. 1-4, some portion of the Gospel and most of the Acts : ex-
cluding such cases as St. Stephen's speech, Acts vii, and the parts of his Gospel
which resemble in style, and were derived from the same sources as, those of
SS. Matthew and Mark.

' Dr. Hort (Introd., Notes, p. 141) confirms the foregoing statements, which
we have repeated unchanged from our former editions. 'What spellings are
sufficiently probable to deserve inclusion among alternative readings, is often
difficult to determine. Although many deviations from classical orthography
are amply attested, many others, which appear to be equally genuine, are found
in one, two, or three MSS. only, and that often with an irregularity which
suggests that all our MSS. have to a greater or less extent suffered from the
effacement of unclaasical forms of words. It is no less true on the other
hand that a tendency in the opposite direction is discernible in Western
MSS. : the orthography of common life, which to a certain extent was used

314 THE DIALECT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT.

4. One of the most striking of them regards what is called
V icfxXKva-TLKov, the 'v attached,' which has been held to be an
arbitrary and secondary adjunct. This letter, however, which is
'of more frequent occurrence at the end of words, is itself of
such a weak and fleeting consistency, that it often becomes
inaudible, and is omitted in writing ' (Donaldson, Greek Gram-
mar, p. 53, 3nd edit.). Hence, though, through the difficulty
of pronunciation, it became usual to neglect it before a conso-
nant, it always comprised a real portion of the word to which
it was annexed, and the great Attic poets are full of verses
which cannot be scanned in its absence ^ : on the other hand, the
cases are just as frequent where its insertion before a consonant
would be fatal to the metre. In these instances the laws of
prosody infallibly point out the true reading, and lead us up to
a general rule, that the weak or moveable v is more ofteii dropped
before a consonant than otherwise. This conclusion is confirmed
by the evidence of surviving classical manuscripts, although but
few of them are older than the tenth century, and would naturally
be conformed, in such minute points, to the fashion of that period.
Codices of the Greek Testament, and of the Septuagint, however,
which date from the fourth century downwards, present to us
this remarkable phenomenon, that they exhibit the final v before
a consonant full as often as they reject it, and, speaking gene-
rally, the most ancient (e. g. Evan. ^5ABCD) ^ are the most
constant in retaining it, though it is met with frequently in
many cursive copies, and occasionally in almost all^. Hence
arises a difficulty, on the part of modern editors, in dealing with

by all tlie writers of the New Testament, though in unequal degrees, would
naturally be introduced more freely in texts affected by an instinct of popular
adaptation.'

' E. g. Aeschylus, Persae, 411 : K6pvitP', en aWriv S' dWos tdvvcv S6pv, or
Sophocles, Antigone, 219 : t& fiij 'mxo'pftv tois imarovaTv jdSf.

' Cod. X, for instance, does not omit it above 208 times throughout the N. T.,
out of which 134 occur with verbs (three so as to cause a hiatus), 29 with nouns,
45 with adjectives (chiefly ttSo-i) or participles (Scrivener, Collation, &c., p. liv).
Its absence produces the hiatus in B*C in i Pet. ii. 18 (emeuteai), and not seldom
in B, e. g. i Pet. iv. 6, where we find «pi$Si<ri and ffflffi, which latter is counten-
anced by A, and both by XL.

^ Wake 12 (Evan. 492), of the eleventh century, may be taken for a fair
representative of its class and date. It retains v with elmv thirty-three times
in St. Matthew, thirteen in St. Mark, as often as 130 in St. Luke. With other
words it mostly reserves v to indicate emphasis (e. g. Luke xxii. 14 ; xxiv. 30), or
to stand before a break in the sense.

ORTHOGRAPHY. 315

this troublesome letter. Lachmann professes to follow the
balance of evidence (such evidence as he received) in each
separate case, and, while he usually inserted, sometimes omitted
nu where he had no cause for such inconsistency except the
purely accidental variation of his manuscripts ; Tischendorf
admits it almost always (N. T., Proleg. p. liii, 7th edition),
Tregelles (I think), as also Westcott and Hort, invariably.
Whether it be employed or not, the practice should at any rate
be uniform, and it is hard to assign any reason for using it
which would not apply to classical writers, whose manuscripts
would no doubt contain it as often as those of the N. T., were
they as remote in date \ The same facts are true, and the same
remarks equally apply to the representing or withdrawing of the
weak s in ovtoos before a consonant. Each of the aforenamed
editors, however, for the sake of euphony, prefers oiira) before
(T at the beginning of the next word, except that Tregelles
ventures on ovtujs o-e Set in Acts xxiii. 11. Cod. N has ovtod
about fourteen times in the N. T.

5. In the mode of spelling proper names of places and per-
sons peculiar to Judaea, the general practice of some older
codices is to represent harsher forms than those met with in
later documents. Thus in Mark i. 21 Ka^apvaovfx is found in
i^BDA, 33, 69, Origen (twice), the Latin, Bohairic, and Gothic
{hut not the Syriac: ipii-Jiao) versions, and, from the facility
of its becoming softened by copyists, this may be preferred to
Kairepvaovfi of AC and the great numerical majority : yet we see
LP with C in Matt. iv. 13, where Z sides with BD. In other
instances the practice varies, even in the same manuscript, or in
different parts of the N. T. Tischendorf, for example, decides
that we ought always to read va(ape6 in St. Matthew, va(apeT in
St. John (N. T., Proleg. p. Iv, note) : yet the Peshitto in all twelve
places that the name occurs, and the Curetonian in the four
wherein it is extant (Matt. ii. 23 ; iv. 13 ; xxi. 11 ; Luke ii. 51),
have the aspirate (!■» j), and being written in a kindred dialect,
claim all the more consideration. Everywhere the manuscripts
vary considerably : thus in Mark i. 9 va^apir is found in NBLPAj

' The terminations which admit this moveable v (including -ft of the pluper-
fect) are enumerated by Donaldson (Gr. Gram. p. 53). Tischendorf, however
(N. T., Proleg. p. liv), demurs to dicoaiv, even before a vowel.

3l6 THE DIALECT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT.

33, 69, and most cursives (seventeen of Scrivener's), Origen, the
Harkleian Syriac and Old Latin a bf: NaCopdr in AP : but
vaCapie in D (not its Latin version, d) EFHKMUVII, 1, and at
least sixteen other cursives (but not Cod. 69 by the first hand, as
Tregelles states), the Old Latin c, the Vulgate, the Bohairic and
Gothic as well as the elder Syriac. In Matt. iv. 13 Cod. B has
'NaCapd by the first hand (but -eV ch. ii. 23), Cod. 5^ by a later one,
with Z, 33 (so E in Luke iv. 16) ; CPA NafapaS, which is found
in A nine times, in A twice : so that regarding the orthography
of this word (which is inconstant also in the Keceived text), no
reasonable certainty is to be attained. For Ma66a.ios, again (the
variation from the common form MaTdalos adopted by Lachmann,
Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort), the authority is but
slender, nor is the internal probability great. Codd. J^BA read
Mad6aloi in the title and headings to the first Gospel, while, in
the five places where it occurs in the text, B (primd manu), the
fragment T% and D have it always, t^ three times (but ju,a55eos
Matt. X. 3, ixardaiov Mark iii. 18 with 2 in the subscription to the
first Gospel), the Sahidic and Gothic each twice : the Peshitto
and title of the Curetonian too (all that is extant) have ul^s.^.
For 'Icodvrjs the proof is yet weaker, for here Cod. B alone, and
not quite consistently (e. g. Luke i. 13 ; 60 ; 63 ; Acts iii. 4, &c.),
reads Jojaj/Tjs, Cod. N looavvr]s^, while Cod. D fluctuates between
the two. In questions of orthography Westcott and Hort, as
also the other editors in some degree, adopt a uniform mode of
spelling, without reference to the state of the evidence in each
particular case.

6. Far more important than these are such variations in
orthography as bear upon the dialect of the N. T. Its affinity
to the Septuagint is admitted on all hands, the degree of that
affinity must depend on the influence we grant to certain very
old manuscripts of the N. T., which abound in Alexandrian
forms for the most part absent in the great mass of codices.
Such are the verbal terminations -aixev, -are, -av in the plural of
the second aorist indicative, -ocrav for -ov in the plural imperfect

' With the remarkable exception of those six leaves of Cod. N which Tischen-
dorf assigns to the scribe who wrote Cod. B. In these leaves of Cod. t< 'laiaiiijs
occurs four times : Matt. xvi. li ; xvii. 1 ; 13 ; Luke i. 18, in which last passage,
however, B has the double nu.

ORTHOGRAPHY. 317

or second aorist, -ov(rav for -GUI', -av for -aa-i of the perfect, -drco
for -eVo), -OTO for -ero, -df^evos for -o'/^evoy. In nouns the principal
changes are -av for -a in the accusative of the third declension,
and (more rarely) the converse a for -av in the first ^. We have
conceded to these forms the name of Alexandrian, because it is
probable that they actually derived their origin from that city ^,
whose dialectic peculiarities the Septuagint had propagated
among all Jews that spoke Greek ; although some of them, if not
the greater part, have been clearly traced to other regions ; as
for example -av for -aa-i to Western Asia Minor also and to Cilicia
(Scholz, Commentatio, p. 9, notes w, x), occurring too in the
Pseudo-Homeric ' Batrachomyomachia ' [e-wel xa/ca TrokXd jx eopyav,
ver. 179). Now when we come to examine our manuscripts
closely we find the forms we have enumerated not quite banished
from the most recent, but appearing far more frequently in such
copies as t^ABC (especially D) LZ than in those of lower date.
It has been usual to ascribe such anomalous (or, at all events,
unclassical) inflexions to the circumstance that the first-rate
codices were written in Egypt ; but an assumption which might
be plausible in the case of two or three is improbable as regards
them all ; it will not apply at all to those Greek-Latin manuscripts
which must have been made in the West, or to the cursives in
which such forms are sparsely met with, but which were certainly
not copied from surviving uncials^- Thus we are led to the
conclusion that the older documents retained these irregularities,
because they were found in their prototypes, the copies first
taken from the sacred originals : that some of them were in all
likelihood the production of the skilful scribes of Alexandria,

* These last might be supposed to have originated from the omission or
insertion of the faint line for v over the preceding letter, which (especially at
the end of a line) we stated in Vol. I. p. 50 to be found even in the oldest manu-
scripts. Sometimes the anomalous form is much supported by junior as
well as by ancient codices : e. g. evyaripav, Luke xiii. 16 by KXr*A, 209, also
by 69, and ten others of Scrivener's.

^ Thus Canon Selwyn cites from Lycophron Kiirb yrjs Itrx"?"'"'!', and Dr. Moultoij
(Winer, p. 91, note 5), after MuUach, iaxoaav from Scymnus Chius.

' Tregelles presses yet another argument : ' If Alexandrian forms had beea
introduced into the N. T. by Egyptian copyists, how comes it that the classical
MSS. written in that country are free from them ? ' (An Account of the Printed
Text, p. 178). But what classical MSS. does he know of, written while Egypt
was yet Greek or Christian, and now extant for our inspection ? I can only
think of Cureton's Homer and Babington's papyri.

3l8 THE DIALECT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT.

though their exhibiting these forms does not prove the fact, or
even render it very probable : and that the sacred penmen, some
perhaps more than others, but all to some extent, were influenced
by their recollections and habitual use of the Septuagint version.
Our practical inference from the whole discussion will be, not
that Alexandrian inflexions should be invariably or even usually
received iuto the text, as some recent editors have been inclined
to do, but that they should be judged separately in every case on
their merits and the support adduced in their behalf; and be
held entitled to no other indulgence than that a lower degree of
evidence will suffice for them than when the sense is affected,
inasmuch as idiosyncrasies in spelling are of all others the most
liable to be gradually and progressively modernized even by
faithful and painstaking transcribers.

7. The same remarks will obviously apply to those other
dialectic forms, which, having been once peculiar to some one
race of the great Greek family, had in the Apostles' time spread
themselves throughout the Greek colonies of Asia and Africa,
and become incorporated into the common speech, if they did
not enter into the cultivated literary style, of the whole nation.
Such are the reputed Dorisms obwaa-ai Luke xvi. 35, Kavxaa-ai.
Rom. ii. 17, i Cor. iv. 7 of the Received text, with no real varia-
tion in any known manuscript : all such examples must stand or
fall on their own proper grounds of external evidence, the internal,
so far as it ought to go, being clearly in their favour. Like to
them are the lonisms jxaxaCprjs Luke xxi. 24 (B*A only) ; Heb.
xi. 34 («AD*); 37 (ND*): iJ.axa(pr, Luke xxii. 49 (^<B*DLT
only) ; Acts xii. 2 («AB*D**, 61) :' <7vveibvi7js Acts v. 2 (AB^E
only, a-vvibv-qs i^, avvibvirjs B*) : <T'i:elpr]s Acts xxvii. 1 of the
common text, where the only authorities for the more familiar
a-neipas seem to be Chrysostom, the cursives 37, 39, 56, 66, 100,
111, 183, 186, 188, 189. To this class belong such changes of
conjugation as KareyeXovv Mark v. 40 in K, 228, 447, 511 or
gscr . Qj. yi(.g yersd, as ayavaKTavres Cod. 69, in Mark xiv. 4. The
form 'ia-T-qKev for ^crTrjKev John viii. 44 ; Apoc. xii. 4, adopted by
Westcott and Hort as the imperfect of ot^kw (Mark xi. 25, &c.),
does not seem suitable to the context in either place, although
o^K precedes in the former passage in NB*DLXAA* 1, 69*, 253,
507, 508, Evst. 234.

DIALECTIC FORMS. 319

8. One caution seems called for in this matter, at least if we
may judge from the practice of certain critics of high and merited
fame. The sacred penmen may have adopted orthographical
forms from the dialect of the Septuagint, or from the debased
diction of common life, but they did not, and could not, write
what was merely inaccurate or barbarous. Hence repudiate, in
St. Paul especially, expressions like Tischendorf 's e(f>' iXiribi Eom.
viii. 20, as simply incredible on any evidence \ He may allege
for it Codd. NB*D*FG, of which the las£ three are bilingual
codices, the scribes of FG showing marvellous ignorance of
Greek ^. That Codd. t^B should countenance such a imonstrum
only enables us to accumulate one example the more of the
fallibility of the very best documents, and to put in all serious-
ness the inquiry of Cobet in Some like instance : ' Quot an-
norum Codex te impellet ut hoc credas ? . . . ecquis est, cui Jicl.es
veterum, menibranarum, in tali re non admodum ridicula et
inepta videatur?' (N. T. Vatic, Praef. p. xx). In the same
way we utterly disregard the manuscripts when they confound
ovx with o^K (but see p. 318), /neAAet with juAet, sense with non-
sense.

The reader has, we trust, been furnished with the leading
principles on which it is conceived that dialectic peculiarities
should be treated in revising the text of the N. T. It would
have been out of place to have entered into a more detailed
account of variations which will readily be met with (and must
be carefully studied) in any good Grammar of the Greek New
Testament. Dr. Moulton's translation of Winer ought to be in
the hands of every student, and leaves nothing to be regretted,
except that accurate scholarship and unsparing diligence should

* ' It is hard to make St. Paul responsible for vulgarisms or provincialisms,
which certainly his pen never -wrote, and which there can be no proof that his
lips ever uttered ' (Epistle to the Romans, Preface to the third edition, p. xxi)
is Dean Vaughan's comment on this 'barbarism.' He regards the Apostle's
habit of dictating his letters as a 'sufficient reason for broken constructions,
for participles without verbs, for suspended nominatives, for sudden digressions,
for fresh starts.'

' Dr. Hort, however, accepts the form l(^' in this place, aspirating IXmSi, and
in the same way favours but does not print ovx oX('7os eight times in the Acts,
adding that although &\ifos 'has no lost digamma to justify it, like some others,
it may nevertheless have been in use in the apostolic age : it occurs in good
MSS. of the LXX' (Introd., Notes, p. 143).

320 THE DIALECT OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT.

have been expended on improving another man's work, by one
who is well able to produce a better of his own ^.

' ' A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek regarded as the basis
of N. T. Exegesis. By Dr. G. B. Winer. Translated from the German with
large additions and full indices by Rev. W. P. Moulton, M.A., D.D.,' third edition
revised, 8vo, Edinburgh, 1882. The forthcoming ' Prolegomena ' to Tischendorf's
N. T. eighth edition (pp. 71-126), to which the kindness of Dr. Caspar Ren6
Gregory has given me access, contain a store of fresh materials on this subject ;
and Dr. Hort's ' Notes on Orthography ' (Introd., Notes, pp. 143-173) will afford
invaluable aid to the student who is ever so little able to accept some of his
conclusions. See also on the more general subject Dr. Neubauer's Article in the
first issue of the Oxford 'Studia Biblica' on 'The Dialects of Palestine in the
Time of Christ.' He controverts Dr. Roberts' opinion that ' Christ spoke for the
most part in Greek, and only now and then in Aramaic' And he distinguishes
between the Babylonian Aramaic, the Galilean Aramaic, and the dialect spoken
at Jerusalem, which had more of Hebrew.

CHAPTER XII.

APPLICATION OF THE FOEEGOING MATERIALS AND PRINCIPLES TO
THE CRITICISM OF SELECT PASSAGES OP THE NEW TESTAMENT.

TN applying to the revision of the sacred text the diplomatic
-*- materials and critical principles it has been the purpose of
the preceding pages to describe, we have selected the few pas-
sages we have room to examine, chiefly in consideration of their
actual importance, occasionally also with the design of illus-
trating by pertinent examples the canons of internal evidence
and the laws of Comparative Criticism. It will be convenient
to discuss these passages in the order they occupy in the volume
of the New Testainent : that which stands first affords a con-
spicuous instance of undue and misplaced subjectivity.

First Series. Gospels.

1. Matt. i. 18. ToC be 'Itjo-oS Xpurrov ... is altered by
Tregelles into ToC be XptoroC, 'Irjo-oC being omitted : Westcott
and Hort place 'Irjo-oS between brackets, and ToS be Xpia-rov
'Itjo-oC of Cod. B in the margin : Tischendorf, who had rejected
'Itjo-oC in his fifth and seventh editions, restored it in his eighth.
Michaelis had objected to the term rdv 'hia-ovv Xpia-Tov, Acts viii.
37 (see that verse, to be examined below), on the ground that
' In the time of the Apostles the word Christ was never used as
the Proper Name of a Person, but as an epithet expressive of the
ministry of Jesus ; ' and although Bp. Middleton has abundantly
proved his statement incorrect (Doctrine of the Greek Article,
note on Mark ix. 41), and 'Irja-ovs Xpioro's ^, especially in some one
of the oblique cases after prepositions, is very common, yet the

'■ In Acts ix. 34 'Irjaoiis Xpiaros, the article between them heing rejected, is read
by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, on the adequate
authority of NB*C, 13, 15, 18, 68, 111, 180, and a catena (probably also Cod. 36),
with one or two Fathei-s, although against AEP, 31, 61, &c.

VOL. II. Y

322 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

precise form 6 'Itjo-oCs Xpiaros occurs only in these places and in
I John iy. 3 ; Apoc. xii. 17, where again the reading is more than
doubtful. Hence, apparently, the determination to change the
common text in St. Matthew, on evidence however slight. Now
'Itjo-oC is omitted in no Greek 'manuscript whatsoever'^. The Latin
version of Cod. D {d) indeed rejects it, the parallel Greek being
lost; but since d sometimes agrees with other Latin copies
against its own Greek, it cannot be deemed quite certain that
the Greek rejected it also ^- Cod. B reads rov t\ Xpia-rov 'Itjo-oC,
in support of which Lachmann cites Origen, iii. 965 d in the
Latin, but on very precarious grounds, as Tregelles (An Account
of the Printed Text, p. 189, note t) candidly admits. Tischendorf
quotes Cod. 74 (after Wetstein), the Persic (of the Polyglott and
in manuscript), and Maximus, Dial, de Trinitate, for rov 8e Irja-ov.
The real testimony in favour of roC be Xpia-rov consists of the Old
Latin copies aba dfff^, the Curetonian Syriac (I know not
why Cureton should add ' the Peshitto '), the Latin Vulgate, the
Prankish and Anglo-Saxon, Wheelocke's Persic, and Lrenaeus in
three places, 'who (after having previously cited the words
"Ghristi autem generatio sic erat") continues ' Ceterum potuerat
dicere Matthaeus, Jesu vero generatio sic erat; sed praevidens
Spiritus Sanctus depravatores, et praemuniens contra fraudu-
lentiam eorum, per Matthaeum ait : Ghristi autem generatio sic
erat' (Contra Haeres., lib. iii. 16. 2). This is given in proof
that Jesus and Christ are one and the same Person, and that
Jesus cannot be said to be the receptacle that afterwards received
Christ ; for the Christ was born ' (An Account of the Printed Text,
p. 188). To this most meagre list of authorities Scholz adds,
' Pseudo-Theophil. in Evang.,' manuscripts of Theophylact,
Augustine, and one or two of little account: but even in
Irenaeus (Harvey, vol. ii. p. 48) tov be lv x^ (tacite), as preserved
by Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople [viii], stands over
against the Latin ' Christi.'

We do not deny the importance of Irenaeus' express testi-
mony ^ (a little impaired though it be by the fanciful distinction

1 I know not why Tischendorf cites Cod. 71 (g*") for the omission of 'Ij/o-oS.
I have again consulted the MS. at Lambeth, and find 16 in this place.

^ See above, I. 130. The precise relation of the Latin Version of Cod. D to the
parallel Greek text is fully examined in Scrivener's ' Codex Bezae,' Introduction,
chap. iii.

'■' Mr. E. B. Nicholson, Bodley's Librarian, doubts the conclusiveness of Ire-

GOSPELS. MATT. I. l8, VI. I3. 323

whicli he had taken up with), had it been supported by some-
thing more trustworthy than the Old Latin versions and their
constant associate, the Curetonian Syriac. On the other hand,
all uncial and cursive codices («CSEKLMPSUVZrAn : ADFG*
&c. being defective here), the Syriac of the Peshitto, Harkleian,
and Jerusalem (8^ only being omitted, since the Church Lesson
begins here), the Sahidic, Bohairic, Armenian, and Ethiopic ver-
sions, Tatian, tenaeus, Origen (in the Greek), Eusebius, Didymus,
Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and the younger Cyril, comprise a body
of proof, not to be shaken by subjective notions, or even by
Western evidence from the second century downwards^.

2. Matt. vi. 13. on (tov f(rnv f) fiacnXeia koi fj bvvaixis Koi
rj bo^a (Is rovs al&vas. d/x?ji'. It is right to say that I can no
longer regard this doxology as certainly an integral part of
St. Matthew's Gospel : but (notwithstanding its rejection by
Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort) I am not
yet absolutely convinced of its spuriousness [i.e. upon much
less evidence than is now adduced] . It is wanting in the oldest
uncials extant, NBDZ, and since AC? (whose general character
would lead us to look for support to the Received text in such
a case) are unfortunately deficient here, the burden of the defence
is thrown on ^ and S and the later uncials EGKLMSUVW^AII
(Mat T), whereof L is conspicuous for usually siding with B. Of
the cursives only five are known to omit the clause, 1, 17 (habet
afxriv), 118, 130, 209, but 566 or h^"' (and as it would seem some
others) has it obelized in the margin, while the scholia in certain
other copies indicate that it is doubtful : even 33 contains it, 69
being defective, while 157, 225, 418 add to 6o'^a, roC Trarphs kuI
TOV vlov Koi TOV hytov TTvevfjiaTos, but 422 tov Trpcr only. Versions
have much influence on such a question, it is therefore important
to notice that it is found in all the four Syriac (Cureton's omit-
ting Koi f] bvvajjiis, and some editions of the Peshitto aiJ-rjv, which

naeus' Latin here ' because his copyist was in the habit of altering him into
accordance with the oldest Latin version ; and because his argument is just as
strong if we read Jesu Christi auiem as if we read Christi. The argument requires
Christi, but does not in the least require it as against Jesu Christi.'

'■ 'The clearly Western ToC Se xCffToS,' aa Dr. Hort admits, 'is intrinsically
free from objection, . . . yet it cannot be confidently accepted. The attestation
is unsatisfactory, for no other Western omission of a solitary word in the
Gospels has any high probability ' (N. T., Notes, p. 7). He retains (ttuSo/teeot,
Matt. V. 11.

Y 2

324 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

is in at least one manuscript), the Sahidic (omitting Ka\ fj Sofa),
the Ethiopic, Armenian, Gothic, Slavonic, Georgian, Erpenius'
Arabic, the Persic of the Polyglott from Pococke's manuscript,
the margin of some Bohairic codices, the Old Latin h (quoniam
est tibi virtus in saecula saeculorum), / g^ (omitting amen) q.
The doxology is not found in most Bohairic (but is in the
margin of Hunt. 17 or Bp. Lightfoot's Cod. 1) and Arabic
manuscripts or editions, in Wheelocke's Persic, in the Old Latin
a b cff'^ g^ h I, in the Vulgate or its satellites the Anglo-Saxon
and Frankish (the Clementine Vulg. and Sax. add amen). Its
absence from the Latin avowedly caused the editors of the
Complutensian N. T. to pass it over, though it was found in
their Greek copies: the earliest Latin Fathers naturally did
not cite what the Latin codices for the most part do not
contain. Among the Greeks it is met with in Isidore of Pelu-
sium (412), and in the Pseudo-Apostolic Constitutions, probably
of the fourth century: soon afterwards Chrysostom (Horn, in
Matt. xix. vol. i. p. 283, Field) comments upon it without show-
ing the least consciousness that its authenticity was disputed.
The silence of some writers, viz. Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen,
Augustine, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Maximus, especially when
expounding the Lord's Prayer, may be partly accounted for by
the fact of the existence of the shorter form of the Lord's Prayer
as given in St.. Luke without the doxology ; or upon the sup-
position that the doxology was regarded not so much a portion
of the Prayer itself, as a hymn of praise annexed to it ; yet this
latter fact would be somewhat unfavourable to its genuineness,
and would be fatal unless we knew the precariousness of any
argument derived from such silence. The Fathers are constantly
overlooking the most obvious citations from Scripture, even where
we should expect them most, although, as we learn from other
passages in their writings, they were perfectly familiar with
them. Internal evidence is not unevenly balanced. It is pro-
bable that the doxology was interpolated from the Liturgies, and
the variation of reading renders this all the more likely ; it is
just as probable that it was cast out of St. Matthew's Gospel to
bring it into harmony with St. Luke's (xi. 4) : I cannot concede
to Scholz that it is ' in interruption of the context,' for then the
whole of ver. 13 would have to be cancelled (a remedy which no
one proposes), and not merely this concluding part of it.

GOSPELS. MATT. VI. I3, XI. I9. 325

It is vain to dissemble the pressure of the adverse case, though
it ought not to be looked upon as conclusive. The AiSaxij (with
variation) and the Syriac and Sahidic versions bring up the
existence of the doxology to the second century ; the Apostolic
Constitutions in the third; Ambrose, Caesarius, Chrysostom,
the Opus Imperfectum, Isidore, and perhaps others ^, attest for
it in the fourth ; then come the Latin codices ^ f g^^e q, the
Gothic, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, and lastly Codd. $ and S
of the fifth or sixth century, and the whole flood-tide of Greek
manuscripts from the eighth century downwards, including even
L, 33, with Theophylact and Euthymius Zigabenus in the eleventh
and twelfth. Perhaps it is not very wise ' quaerere quae habere
non possumus,' yet those who are persuaded, from the well-
ascertained affinities subsisting between them, that AGP, or at
least two out of the three, would have preserved a reading sanc-
tioned by the Peshitto, by Codd. fk, by Chrysostom, and by
nearly all the later documents, may be excused for regarding the
indictment against the last clause of the Lord's Prayer as hitherto
unproven, in Dr. Scrivener's judgement passed upon much less
than the evidence in favour adduced above ; and for supposing
the genuineness of the clause to be proved when the additional
evidence is taken into consideration.

3. Matt. xi. 19. The change of riKvoov of the Eeceived text
into ipymv, as made by Tischendorf, Tregelles (who retains reKvutv
in his margin), by Hort and Westcott, is quite destructive to the
sense, so far as we can perceive, for Jerome's exposition (' Sapi-
entia quippe non quaerit vocis testimonium, sed operum') could

' Why should Gregory Nyssen (371) be classed among the opponents of the
clause, whereas Griesbaeh honestly states, ' suam expositionem his quidem
verbis concludit ; [and tov novrjpov rod kv tw K6(7ftaj tovtcu t^v la^vv KeKTrjfievov, o5
pvffOeiTjfj.ey'] -x^LpiTi [roS] x/^iCTOu, 0T( avrov ^ Svvafits Kal tj S6^a a/ia tw narpl «ai to;
dyiqj Tivt^txaTi, vvv teal del ko} ets Toiis aiaivas rSiv aiwvaiv, dfji.'Tjv ' ? Griesbaeh adds
indeed, ' sed pro parte sacri textus neutiquam haeo habuisse videtur ; ' and
justly : they were rather a loose paraphrase of the sentence before him. See
Textual Guide, Edward Miller, App. V.

" Canon Cook (Eevised Version, p. 57) alleges as a probable cause of the
general omission of the doxology in early Latin Versions and Fathers, that in
all the Western liturgies it is separated from the petitions preceding by an
intercalated Emiolismus. More weighty is his observation that all the Greek
Fathers, from Chrysostom onwards, who deal with the interpretation of the
Lord's Prayer, ' agree with that great expositor in maintaining the important
bearings [of the doxology] upon the preceding petitions.'

326 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

hardly satisfy any one but himself. The reading epyu>v is sup-
ported by NB* (with riKvcuv in the margin by the hand W, 124,
the Peshitto Syriae (apparently; for all the older editions we
know punctuate ijll^iiC ' doers,' no <iii?iii» ' works '), the Hark-
leian text (but not its margin), the Bohairic, some copies known
to Jerome, Armenian manuscripts, the Ethiopic (one MS. con-
tains both forms), and (after the Peshitto Syriae) the Persic
of the Polyglott and its codices. We can hardly question
that the origin of the variation arose from the difficulty on the
part of translators and copyists to understand the Hellenistic
use of T€KV(ov in this place, and modern editors liave been
tempted to accept it from a false suspicion that the present
passage has been assimilated to Luke vii. 35, where indeed Cod.
N and St. Ambrose have otto Travrav t&v epycav avTrjs. As we
have alleged that Jerome's explanation is unsatisfactory in St.
Matthew's Gospel, we subjoin that of Ambrose, which is certainly
no less obscure, on the parallel place of St. Luke : ' Bene ab
omnibus quia circa omnes justitia servatur, ut susceptio fiat
fidelium, rejectio perfidorum. Unde plerique Graeci sic habent:
jn&tificata est sapientia ab omnibus operibus suis, quod opus
justitiae sit, circa uniuscujusque meritum servare mensuram.'
Li the face of the language of these two great Latin Fathers
it is remarkable that all other Latin authorities agree with
the Curetonian Syriae and the mass of Greek manuscripts in
upholding reKvav, which is undoubtedly the only true reading.

4. Matt. xvi. 2, 3. The whole passage from 'OxIrCas ver. 2
to the end of ver. 3 is set within brackets by Tischendorf in his
eighth edition, within double brackets by Westcott and Hort,
who holds (Notes, p. 13) that ' both documentary evidence and
the impossibility of accounting for omission prove these words
to be no part of the text of Mt.' Yet it might seem impossible
for any one possessed of the slightest tincture of critical instinct
to read them thoughtfully without feeling assured that they were
actually spoken by the Lord on the occasion related in the
Eeceived text, and were omitted by copyists whose climate the
natural phenomena described did not very well suit, the rather
as they do not occur in the parallel text, ch. xii. 38, 39. Under
these circumstances, the internal evidence in favour of the passat^e
being thus clear and irresistible, the witnesses against it are

GOSPELS, MATT. XI. I9 ; XVI. 2, 3; XIX. I7. 327

more likely to damage their own authority than to impair our
confidence in its genuineness. These witnesses are J^BVXr,
2, 13, 34, 39, 44, 84, 124 primd manu, 157, 180, 194, 258, 301,
511, 575. Cod. 482 has the words, but only in a later hand at
the foot of the page (Nicholson). Of these cursive codices 157
alone is of the first class for importance, and the verses are
explained in the scholia of X (for ver. 3) and of 39. E and 606
have them with an asterisk ; but they are wanting in the
Curetonian Syriac, the Bohairic according to Mill (but not so
other Coptic manuscripts and editions), and the Armenian, as
unaltered from the Latin. Origen passes them over in his
commentary, and Jerome, in his sweeping way, declares 'hoc
in plerisque codicibus non habetur.' They are recognized in
the Eusebian canons (Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text,
p. 205).

The united testimony of t^B and the Curetonian version suffices
to show that the omission was current as early as the second
century, while the accordance of CD, of all the Latins and the
Peshitto, with the mass of later codices assures us that the words
were extant at the same early date. If any one shall deem this
a case best explained by the existence of two separate recensions
of the same work, one containing the disputed sentences, the other
derived from copies in which they had not yet been inserted, he
may find much encouragement for his conjecture by considering
certain passages in the latter part of St. Luke's Gospel, where the
same sort of omissions, supported by a class of authorities quite
difiierent from those we have to deal with here, occur too often
to be merely accidental.

5. Matt. xix. 17. For Tt /xe Xe'yets ayae6v; oiliXs ayados, el
ixri fh, 6 &e6s, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles,
Alford, Westcott and Hort read Tt /ne ipcuras vepl rod ayaOov ; eh
ea-rlv 6 ayaOos. The self-same words as in the Received text occur
in the parallel places Mark x. 18, Luke xviii. 19 with no variation
worth speaking of ; a fact which (so far as it goes) certainly lends
some support to the supposition that St. Matthew's autograph
contained the other reading [?]. Add to this that any change
made from St. Matthew, supposing the common reading to be
true, must have been wilfully introduced by one who was
oflfended at the doctrine of the Divine Son's inferiority to the

328 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

Father which it seemed to assert or imply. Internal evidence,
therefore, would be a little in favour of the alteration approved
by Lachmann, Tischendorf, and the rest; and in discussing
external authority, their opponents are much hampered by the
accident that A is defective in this place, while ^ has recently
been added to the list of its supporters [though more recently
* and S have come into the opposite balance]. Under these
circumstances we might have been excused from noticing this
passage at all, as we are no longer able to uphold the Received
text with the same confidence as before, but that it seemed dis-
honest to suppress a case on which Tregelles (An Account of the
Printed Text, pp. 133-8) has laid great stress, and which, when
the drift of the internal evidence is duly allowed for, tells more
in his favour than any other he has alleged, or is likely to be
met with elsewhere ^.

The alternative reading Ti ixe epcoras wept tov ayaOov k. t. A.
occurs in i^BD (omitting tov and 6) L, 1 (omitting 6), 22, 604.
In 251 both readings are given, the Received one first, inver. 17,
the other interpolated after woi'as ver. 18, prefaced by 6 8e tijcroCs
elirev avr^. Excepting these seven, all other extant codices reject
it, CEFGHKMSUVrA {V omits n' iie Xiyeis ayaBov; A omits
Xiyeii, n is defective here), even Codd. 33, 69. The versions are
more seriously divided. The Peshitto Syriac, the Harkleian
text, the Sahidic (Oxford fragments), the Old Latin fq, the
Arabic, &c., make for the common reading ; Cureton's and the
Jerusalem Syriac, the Old Latin abceff^-^l, the Vulgate (the
Anglo-Saxon and Frankish, of course), Bohairic and Armenian,
for that of Lachmann and his followers. Several present a mixed
form : tl jxe epioray Trepl tov ayadov ; ovbels ayados el /x^ els : viz. the
margin of the Harkleian, the Ethiopic, and g^hin of the Old
Latin. A few (Cureton's Syriac, h cff^-^ g^hlm, Jerome and the
Vulgate) add 6 6e6s, as in the common text ; but this is unim-
portant.

Tregelles presses us hard with the testimony of Origen in
favour of the reading he adopts : 6 [jiiv ovv MaTOaios, ws irepl
ayadov epyov fpcoTrjdevTos tov crooTfjpos ev ru, Tt ayaQov TTonjo-co ;
aveypaxj/ev. 'O 6e MdpKos (cat AovKas (pacrl Tbv crcaTrjpa elprjKevai, Tt
IJ.€ Xeyeis ayadov ; ovbels dyaOos, et fxri els, 6 ©eo's (Tom. iii. p. 644 d).
' The reading which is opposed to the common text,' Tregelles

' ' Quite a test-passage ' Mr. Hammond calls it (Outlines of Text. Grit., p. 76).

GOSPELS. MATT. XIX. I7. 329

■writes, ' has the express testimony of Origen in its favour '

(p. 134) ; ' might I not well ask for some proof that the other

reading existed, in the time of Origen, in copies of St. Matthew's

Gospel ■? ' (p. 137). I may say in answer, that the testimony of

Origen applies indeed to the former part of the variation which

Tregelles maintains (ti ju.e epuiras irepi rov dyadov), but not at all

to the latter (els eariv 6 dyados), and that the Peshitto Syriac

version of the second, as also the Sahidic of the third century,

uphold the common text, without any variation in the manuscripts

of the former, that we know of Or if he asks for the evidence

of Fathers to counterbalance that of a Father, we have Justin

Martyr : irpoa-fXOovTos avTi2 tlvos koI elirovros (words which show,

as Tischendorf observes, that St. Matthew's is the only Gospel

that can be referred to) AiMa-KaXi dyaQe, dmKpivaTO Xeyiov, Oiibeis

dyados et /mi] fjLovos 6 ©eos 6 Trotijcras to, irdvTa, citing loosely, as is

usual with him, but not ambiguously. Or if half the variation

will satisfy, as it was made to do for Origen, Tregelles' own note

refers us to Irenaeus 92 for ri jxe \eyeis dyadov ; els ecrrlv dyados,

and to Eusebius for the other half in the form above quoted from

the Ethiopic, &c. Moreover, since he cites the last five words of

the subjoined extract as belonging to St. J/attAew, Tregelles entitles

us to employ for our purpose the whole passage, Marcos, apud

Iren. 92, which we might not otherwise have ventured to do ; Kal

rw duovTi aiiTM AtSair/caAe dyaOe, rbv dX.r]0&s dyaOov Otov w/LioXoyjjKej'ai,

el-novTa Tt p,e Ae'yets dyadov ; els kcniv dyados, Trar-qp ev rots ovpavoLs.

Jerome and Augustine (for the first clause only, though very

expressly : de Consensu Evan. ii. 63) are with the Latin Vulgate,

Hilary with the common Greek text, as are also Optatus,

Ambrose, Chrysostom, and the main body of later Fathers. Thus

the great mass of manuscripts, headed by C [followed by * and

t], is well supported by versions, and even better by ecclesiastical

writers ; yet, in virtue of the weight of internal evidence [?], we

dare not hold out unreservedly against the reading of BDL, &c.,

now that Cod. J< is found to agree with them, even though

subsequent investigations have brought to light so close a relation

between t< and B as to render it impossible, in our opinion, to

regard them as independent witnesses ^.

' Thikd Edition. I would fain side in this instance with my revered friend
and Revision colleague Dr. David Brown of Aberdeen, and all my prepossessions
are strongly in favour of the fate recepius here. He is quite right in perceiving

330 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

6. Matt. xx. 28. The extensive interpolation which follows
this verse in some very ancient documents has been given ahove
(I. 8), in the form represented in the Curetonian Syriac version.
It bears the internal marks of evident spuriousness, the first
sentence consisting of a rhetorical antithesis as .unsuitable as can
be imagined to the majestic simplicity of our Lord's usual tone>
while the sentiment of the rest is manifestly borrowed from
Luke xiv. 8-10, although there is little or no resemblance in the
words. The only extant Greek for the passage is in Codd. <J> and
D, of which D gives the fullest text, as follows : D/xets 6e C'i'refe •
€(c fj-iLKpov av^r)(Tai KOt e/c fxei^ovos iXarrov fivai Giaepxpixevoi 8e /cat
■napaKXridevTes benrvrjo-ai > jxrj avaKkeiveadaL ets tovs f^e^ovTas totiovs
fxrj TTore evbo^orepos crov sTteXd-q km TrpocreXOmv o benrvoKXrjTOip eLurj
(Tot en KOTO) \uipei. • km Karaiirxyvdrjari Gav be az/aTretrrjs" eis top
rjTTOva TOTTOV KOt eTTekdri croii tittoov epei crot o beLT;voK\r)TU>p' avvaye ert.
avco KM earai aoi tovto xprjaifj-ov. The codices of the Old Latin
version {a be eff ^'^ h n and and. em. of the Vulgate ^) mostly
support the same addition, though with many variations : d, as
usual, agrees with none ; g^ has not the first clause down to
ehai, while g^ m have nothing else. Besides the Curetonian
Syriac, the margin of the Harkleian contains it in a shape much
like d, noting that the paragraph is ' found in Greek copies in
this place, but in ancient copies only in St. Luke, /ce<^. 53 ' [ch.
xiv. 8, &c.] : Cureton has also seen it in one manuscript of the
Peshitto (Brit. Mus. 14,456), but there too in the margin.
Marshall states that it is contained in four codices of the Anglo-
Saxon version, which proves its wide reception in the West.
Of the Fathers, Hilary recognizes it, as apparently do Juvencus
and Pope Leo the Great (a. d. 440-461). It must have been

(Christian Opinion and Eevisionist, p. 435) that the key of his position lies in
the authenticity of dyaBe ver. 16, which is undoubtedly found in Mark x. 17 ;
Luke xviii. 18. If that word had abided unquestioned here, the form of reply
adopted in the other two Gospels would have inevitably followed. As the case
stands, there is not considerably less evidence for omitting dyaSe (^^BDL, 1, 22,
479, Evst. 5 [not 'five Evangelistaria'], aeff', Eth., Origen twice, Hilary) than
for Ti fie epanas k.t.A., although Cureton's and the Jerusalem Syriac, the Bohairic,
and the Vulgate with some other Latin copies, change sides here. It is upon
these recreant versions that Dr. Brown must fix the charge of inconsistency. If
dyaBi be an interpolation, surely ti dyaSdv irmriaco is pertinently answered by Ti
fii ^poJTqs irfpl Tov dyaOov.

1 Canon Westcott (Smith's ' Dictionary of the Biblo,' Vulgate Version) adds
Bodl. 867 ; Brit. Mus. Eeg. i B. vii, and Reg. i. A. xviii in part, also Addit.
24,142 by the second hand. Tischendorf also cites theoHsc.

GOSPELS. MATT. XX. 28; XXI. 28-3I. 33I

rejected by Jerome, being entirely absent from the great mass of
Vulgate codices, nor is it in the Old Latin /Zg. No other Greek
codex, or version, or ecclesiastical writer, has any knowledge of
the passage : while the whole language of the Greek of Cod. D,
especially in such words as benrvoKXiqTaip, i^ixovras, rJTTOiv,
xp^ct/ios, is so foreign to the style of St. Matthew's Gospel, that
it seems rather to have been rendered from the Latin ^, although
in the midst of so much variation it is hard to say from what
copy. Cureton too testifies that the Syriac of the version named
from him must have been made quite independently of that in
the margins of the Harkleian and Peshitto.

No one has hitherto ventured to regard this paragraph as
genuine, however perplexing it may be to decide at what period
or even in what language it originated. The wide divergences
between the witnesses must always dismiss it from serious
consideration. Its chief critical use must be to show that the
united testimony of the Old Latin, of the Curetonian Syriac,
and of Cod. D, are quite insufficient in themselves to prove any
more than that the reading they exhibit is ancient : certainly as
ancient as the second century.

7. Matt. xxi. 28-31. This passage, so transparently clear
in the common text, stands thus in the edition of Tregelles :
^28j "p^ g^ ^^jj, SoKei ; avdpaiiros etx.ev TiKva bvo, Kal irpocrfXdwv
Tu ■ffpcdTft) il-nev, TeKvov, viraye a-ri\xipov kpya^ov ev ru dp,T!eX&vi.
(^') 6 be cnroKpiBels etirev, Ov dekca' vcrrepov be neTapieXridels dTrrjXdev.
{^) irpocreXdbiv be rco bevTep<a etirev axravTcds. 6 be iXTroKpiBels etirev,
'Eycd, Kvpie' KoL ovk dTrrjXOev. (^^) ris ck t&v bvo eTtoirjcrev to 6eXr]p.a
rod Trarpos ; Xeyovcriv, 'O va-repos. The above is indeed a brilliant
exemplification of Bengel's Canon, 'Proclivi orationi praestat
ardua.' Lachmann in 1842 had given the same reading, with
a few slight and unimportant exceptions. The question is pro-

' No passage more favours Bp. Middleton's deliberate conclusion respecting
the history of the Codex Bezae : ' I believe that no fraud was intended : but
only that the critical possessor of the basis filled its margin with glosses and
readings chiefly from the Latin, being a Christian of the Western Church ; and
that the whole collection of Latin passages was translated into Greek, and sub-
stituted in the text by some one who had a high opinion of their value, and who
was, as Wetstein describes him, ' xaWiffwupias qu^m vel Graecae vel Latinae
linguae peritior.' (Doctrine of the Greek Article, Appendix I. p. 4fc5, 3rd
edition.)

332 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

posed which of the two sons did their father's will ; the reply is
6 va-Tepos, the one that promised and then failed ! Lachmann in
1850 (N.T., vol. ii. Praef. p. 5) remarks that had he been sure
that TTp&Tos (ver. 31) was the reading of Cod. C, he should have
honoured it, the only word that makes sense, with a place in his
margin : ' Nihilo minus,' he naively adds, ' id quod nunc solum
edidi ... 6 va-repos veri similius est altero, quod facile aliquis
correctori adscribat, illud non item ; ' and we must fairly
confess that no copyist would have sought to introduce a plain
absurdity into so beautiful and simple a parable. ' Quid vero/
he goes on to plead, ' si id quod veri similius esse dixi ne intellegi
quidem potest?' (a pertinent question certainly) ' corrigetue, si
MODO NECESSE ERiT :' critical conjecture, as usual, is his panacea.
Conjecture, however, is justly held inadmissible by Tregelles,
whose mode of interpretation is a curiosity in its way. 'I
believe,' he says, 'that 6 liarepos refers not to the order in
which the two sons have been mentioned, but to the previous
expression about the elder son, va-repov be /,ieraji^eA7j9eis diTTJXdev,
afterwards he repented and went.' ' Which of the two did his
father's will ! 6 va-repos. He who afterwards [repented and
went]. This answers the charge that the reading of Lachmann
is void of sense' (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 107).
I entertain sincere veneration for the character and services of
Dr. Tregelles, but it is only right to assert at once that what
stands in his text is impossible Greek. Even granting that
instead of the plain answer ' the first,' our Lord's adversaries
resorted to the harsh and equivocal reply 'he who after-
wards,' they would not have said 6 varepos, but 6 vnTepov, or (the
better to point out their reference to va-repov in ver. 29) 6 to
varepov.

Why then prefer nonsense, for the mere purpose of carrying
out Bengel's canon to the extremity ? The passage, precisely as
it stands in Tregelles' N. T., is sanctioned by no critical authority
tuhatsoever. Cod. B indeed has va-repos (which is here followed
by Westcott and Hort), Cod. 4 be-irepos, Codd. 13, 69, 124, 346
(Abbott's four), and 238, 262, 556, 604, perhaps others, ea^aTos,
one or other of which is in the Jerusalem Syriac and Bohairic,
the Ethiopic (two manuscripts), the Armenian and two chief
Arabic versions ; but all these authorities (with tol. of the
Vulgate secundd manu, as also Isidore, the Pseudo-Athanasius,

GOSPELS. MATT. XXI. 28-3I. 333

and John Damascene), transpose the order of the two sons in
Yv. 29, 30, so that the result produces just the same sense as in the
Received text. The suggestion that the clauses were transferred
in order to reconcile liarepos or ea-xaros with the context may be
met by the counter-statement that varepos was just as likely to
be substituted for TrpSros to suit the inversion of the clauses.
Against such inversion (which we do not pretend to recommend,
though Westcott and Hort adopt it) Origen is an early witness,
so that Cod. B and its allies are no doubt wrong : yet as that
Father does not notice any difficulty in ver. 31, the necessary
inference ought to be that he read ttpZtos\ Hippolytus testifies
to f(r)(^aTos in ver. 31, but his evidence cannot be used, since he
gives no indication in what order he took the clauses in vv. 29,
30. The indefensible part of Tregelles' arrangement is that,
allowing the answers of the two sons to stand as in our common
Bibles, he receives va-repos in the room of irpSros on evidence
that reaUy tells against him. The only true supporters of
his general view are Cod. D aLo-xaros (i.e. eo-xaros), the Old
Latin copies aheff'^-'^ g^hl, the best codices of the Vulgate (am..
fuld.for. san.tol. AarZ.*),the Anglo- Saxon version, and Augustine,
though not the Clementine edition of the Vulgate. Hilary
perplexes himself by trying to explain the same reading ; and
Jerome, although he says ' Sciendum est in veris exemplaribus
non haberi novissimum sed priTnuTn,' has an expedient to account
for the former word ^, which, however (if am. fuld., &c. may be
trusted), he did not venture to reject when revising the Old
Latin. On no true principles can Cod. D and its Latin allies

' I see no reasonable ground for imagining with Lachmann that Origen who,
as he truly observes, ' non solet difficilia praeterire,' did not find in his copy
anything between irarpSs ; and 'A/itiv in ver. 31. On the supposition that he
read tt/jStos there was no difficulty to slur over. Moreover, there is not a vestige
of evidence for omitting Kiyei avroTs o Irjaots, the existence of which words Lach-
mann clearly perceived to be fatal to his ingenious guess, although Dr. Hort
will only allow that it ' weakens his suggestion,' adding in his quiet way ' This
phrase might easily seem otiose if it followed immediately on words of Christ,
and might thus be thought to imply the intervention of words spoken by others '
(Notes, p. 17).

' Jerome conceives that the Jews ' intellegere quidem veritatem, sed tergiver-
sari, et nolle dieere quod sentiunt ; ' and so Canon Gr. I". Goddard, Rector of
Southfleet, believed that their wantonly false answer brought on them the
Lord's stern rebuke. Hilary's idea is even more far-fetched : viz. that though
the second son disobeyed, it was because he could not execute the command.
' Non ait noluisse sed non abisse. Kes extra oulpam infidelitatis est, quia in
facti erat difficultate ne fieret.'

334 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

avail against such a mass of opposing proof, whereof Codd.
NC*2LX lead the van. Even the Curetonian Syriae, which
so often favours Cod. D and the Old Latin, is with the textus
receptus here.

8. Matt, xxvii. 35. After ySdXXoire? KXrjpov the Received
textj but not the Complutensian edition, has iva TtXrfpoiQfi to prjOev
VTTO Tov irpocpriTov, Aifp.epiaravTO to, ijnarid jiov eavTois km enl tov
lp.aTi(7p.6v nov f^akov Kkrjpov. Internal evidence may be about
equal for the omission of the clause by homoeoteleuton of KXrjpov,
and for its interpolation from John xix. 24, ' with just the phrase
TO prjOev vT!o (or diro) roC Trpo^Tjrou assimilated to Matthew's usual
form of citation ' (Alford, ad loc). External evidence, however,
places the spuriousness of the addition beyond doubt. It is first
heard of in citations of Eusebius, and is read in the Old Latin
codices ahcg"^ (not g'^) h q, the Clementine (not the Sixtine)
Vulgate and even in am. lux., Harl. 2826, lind., in King's Libr.
1. D. ix and the margin of 1. E. vi (but not iafuld.for. toL*
em. ing.jac. san. nor in fff^'^g^ I), the Armenian (whose resem-
blance to the Vulgate is so suspicious), the Frankish and Anglo-
Saxon, and as a matter of course in the Eoman edition of the
Arabic, and in the Persic of the Polyglott. The clause seems
to be found in no manuscript of the Peshitto Syriae, and is
consequently absent from Widmanstadt's edition and the
Antwerp, Paris, and London Polyglotts. TremelKus first
turned the Greek words into Syriae and placed them in the
margin of his book, whence they were most unwisely admitted
into the text of several later editions (but not into Lee's),
without the slightest authority. They also appear in the text
of the Harkleian, but the marginal note states that ' this passage
from the prophet is not in two [' three ' Codd. Assemani] Greek
copies, nor in the ancient Syiiac' All other versions and
Fathers (except Eusebius and the Pseudo-Athanasius), and all
Greek manuscripts reject the clause, except A, 1, 17, 58 (marg.),
69, 118, 124, 262, 300, 503, 550, Evst. 55 : Scholz adds 'aliis
multis,' which (judging from my own experience) I must take
leave to doubt. Besides other slight changes {avrots A, KXripovs
69 secundd manu) Codd. A, 61, 69, 503 and Eusebius read 6id
for VTTO. The present case is one out of many that show an
intimate connexion subsisting between Codd. 61 and 69.

GOSPELS. MATT. XXVII. 35; MARK VI. 20. 335

9. Mark vi. 20. koI aKova-as avrov TroWa ewoiet, koI fibeats
avTov jJKove. ' " Did many things " Engl. vers. I think it must
have occurred to many readers that this is, to say the least,
a very singular expression.' So writes Mr. Linwood, very truly,
for nothing can well be more tame or unmeaning. His remedy
we can say little for. ' I think that for iroXAo eirotet we should
read -noXXov kitoUi, i. e. magni faciebat. It is true that classical
usage would require the middle voice, sc. iroXAoC ewoieiro. But
this rule is not always observed by the N. T. writers ^ ' (Linwood,
p. 11). If, instead of resorting to conjecture, he had opened
Tischendorf s eighth edition, he would have found there a reading,
adopted as well by that editor as by Westcott and Hort, whose
felicity, had it been nothing more than a happy conjecture, he
might well have admired. Codd. t^BL for iroAAo firoUi^ have
ttoKka ijiropet ' was much perplexed,' which the Bohairic confirms,
only that, in translating, it joins ■aokXa with aKova-as. This close
resemblance between the Bohairic version and Codd. t^B (especially
Cod. B) is very apparent throughout the N. T. ; a single example
being their united omission of la-xypov in Matt. xiv. 30 in company
with but one other authority, the great cursive Cod. 33. Hence
we do not hesitate to receive a variation supported by only
a few first-rate authorities, where internal evidence (Canon II,
p. 248) pleads so powerfully in its favour. Although the middle
voice is found elsewhere in the N. T., yet the active in this
precise sense may be supported by good examples, even when
used absolutely, as here : e. g. aWos 01 a-nopiovTi imedi^KaTo Herod,
i. 191 : 6 8' aTTop&v, &s (paa-i, fxoXis KaTev6r](Te t^v irpoa-xaicnv TovTrjv
ToS 'AxeXtiov Thuc. ii. 102.

Another less considerable but interesting variation, occurring
just before, in chap. v. 36, irapaKova-as ' overhearing ' instead of
aicovcras, may be deemed probable on the evidence of t^*BLA and
the Latin e, which must have had the reading, though it is
mistranslated neglexit^- We gladly credit the same group
(NBCLA, 473, Evst. 150, 259) with another rare compound,
KoreuAo'yet in ch. x. 16, whose intensive force is very excellent.

' His sole example is iSiiv noiftv Mark ii. 23, ■which seems not at all parallel.
The phrase may as well signify to ' clear away ' as ' make their way.'

' iroWa & iiroUi is the reading of Abbott's four and of Codd. 28, 122, 5il, 661,
572, Evst. 196.

^ Which is certainly its meaning in Lucian, Tom. ii. p. 705 (Salmur. 1619) ;
I know no example like that in St. Mark.

336 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

In ch. xii. 17 a similar compound i^edaviJiaCov is too feebly-
vouched for by NB alone.

[Third Edition. It is only fail- to retain unchanged the note
on Mark vi. 20, inasmuch as the ' Two Members of the N. T.
Company' have exercised their right of claiming my assent
to the change of sTToCei into rjTTopeL. I must, however, retract
that opinion, for the former reading now appears to me to
afford an excellent sense. Herod gladly heard the Baptist,
and did many things at his exhortation ; every thing in fact
save the one great sacrifice which he could not persuade himself
to make.]

10. Mark vii. 1 9. The substitution of KadapiCa>v for Ka6api(ov,
so far from being the unmeaning itacism it might seem at
first sight, is a happy restoration of the true sense of a passage
long obscured by the false reading. For the long vowel
there is the overwhelming evidence of NAB [hiat C) EFGH
LSXA, 1, 13, 28, 48, 50, 53, 58, 59 (me teste), 61**, 64, 65,
69, 122* 124, 229, 235, 244, 251, 282, 346, 435, 473, 492, 508,
515, 570, 622, Evst. 49, 259, and Erasmus first edition: his
second reads eKKadapL^Mv, his third KadapiCov of <I>2KMUVrn,
547, 558, and perhaps a majority of the cursives. The reading
of D Ka9api(et, [KaOapiCav 61 prima manu), as also Koi Ka6api(a of
Evst. 2S2 and the Latin i, seem to favour the termination -ov.
purgans of a6c(enen d)fff^g^-^l1nq and the Vulgate, is of
course neutral. The Peshitto \loliaj_ (qui purgat) refers in
gender to the noun immediately preceding, and would require
Ka0api(ovTa. Will any one undertake to say what is meant by
the last clause of the verse as it stands in the Authorized English
version, and as it must stand, so long as Kadapi(ov is read 1 If,
on the other hand, we follow Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf,
Westcott and Hort, we must take the Lord's words to end with
eKTTopeveTM, and regard KaOapC^aiv nAvTa to ^pco/xara as the Evan-
gelist's comment upon them : ' This he said, to make all things
clean.' Compare Acts x. 15. This, and none other, seems to have
been the meaning assigned to the passage by the Greek Fathers.
It is indeed most simply expressed by Chrysostom (Horn. II.
in Matt. p. 526 A) : 'O he. MdpKos ^rjcr^i;, on KaOapi^av ra fipco/mTa,
Tavra iXeyev, where Dr. Field's elaborate note should be con-

GOSPELS. MARK VII. IQ ,* XVI. 9-2O. 337

suited. He rightly judges that Chrysostom was treading in the
steps of Origen: koI /xaXiora enel Kara rbv MdpKOv eXeye ravra 6
ScoTTjp, KadaplCmv ndvra to. ^pcajxara. Hence Gregory Thaumaturgua
designates the Lord as 6 trajT^p 6 -navra Kadap(Co>v ra /Spcofiara.
I know not how Tischendorf came to overlook the passage from
Chrysostom : Tregelles very seldom uses him. It is obvious
how well the elliptical form of the expression suits this Evan-
gelist's style, which is often singularly concise and abrupt, yet
never obscure.

11. Mark xvi. 9-20. In Vol. I. Chap. I, we engaged to de-
fend the authenticity of this long and important passage, and
that without the slightest misgiving (p. 7). Dean Burgon's
brilliant monograph, 'The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel
according to St. Mark vindicated against recent objectors and
established' (Oxford and London, 1871), has thrown a stream of
light upon the controversy, nor does the joyous tone of his
book misbecome one who is conscious of having triumphantly
maintained a cause which is very precious to him. We may
fairly say that his conclusions have in no essential point been
shaken by the elaborate and very able counter-plea of Dr. Hort
(Notes, pp. 28-51). This whole paragraph is set apart by itself in
the critical editions of Tischendorf and Tregelles. Besides this,
it is placed within double brackets by Westcott and Hort, and
followed by the wretched supplement derived from Cod. L (vide
infra), annexed as an alternative reading (aAAcoc). Out of aU
the great manuscripts, the two oldest (^<B) stand alone in
omitting vers. 9-20 altogether i. Cod. B, however, betrays
consciousness on the scribe's part that something is left out,
inasmuch as after e(j)o^ovvTo yap ver. 8, a whole column is left
perfectly blank {the only blank one in the whole volume"^), as
well as the rest of the column containing ver. 8, which is usual

' I have ventured but slowly to vouch for Tischendorf s notion, that six leaves
of Cod. 8, that containing Mark xvi. 2 — Luke i. 56 being one of them, were written by
the scribe of Cod. B. On mere identity of handwriting and the peculiar shape
of certain letters who shall insist ? Yet there are parts of the case which
I know not how to answer, and which have persuaded even Dr. Hort. Having
now arrived at this conclusion our inference is simple and direct, that at least
in these leaves, Codd. NB make but one witness, not two.

' The cases of Nehemiah, Tobit, and Daniel, in the Old Testament portion of
Cod. B, are obviously in no wise parallel in regard to their blank columns.
VOL. II. Z

338 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

7 in Cod. B at the end of every other book of Scripture. (No
such peculiarity attaches to Cod. N. ) The testimony of L, that
close companion of B, is very suggestive. Immediately after
ver. 8 the copyist breaks oif ; then in the same hand (for all
con-ections in this manuscript seem primd rnanu : see p. 138), at
the top of the next column we read. . . (f>epeTe vov km TavTa+. . .
■ndvTa be ra TrapriyyeXixeva tois wept tov •nerpov a-vvrofiotxr k^yyiKav+
jxera 6e raSra koI ovtos 6 i(t, airo avaroXricr Koi ayjpi hva-etna- i^a-necTTi-
Xev 81 avTcnv to 'ikpov Kai a(j)dapTov Kr]pvy}i.a+Tr\cT alSiviov (ru>Tr]piaiT-¥
, . . e<rTr]v be km ravra (fiepofieva p-era to etpo^ovvTO yap+. . . Avaorao-
6e TTpm TTpooTTi [ra/3;8ara+K.r.\., ver. 9, ad fin. capit. (Burgon's
facsimile, facing his p. 113 : our facsimile No. 21) : as if w. 9-
20 were just as little to be regarded as the trifling apocryphal
supplement ^ which precedes them. Besides these, the twelve
verses are omitted in none but some old Armenian codices ^ and
two of the Ethiopia, k of the Old Latin, and an Arabic Lectionary
[ix] No. 13, examined by Scholz in the Vatican. The Old Latin
Codex k puts in their room a corrupt and careless version of the
subscription in L ending with o-caTripCas (k adding ainen) : the
same subscription being appended to the end of the Gospel in
the two Ethiopic manuscripts, and (with d/xjjv) in the margin
of 274 and the Harkleian. Not unlike is the marginal note in
Hunt. 17 or Cod. 1 of the Bohairic, translated by Bp. Lightfoot
above. Of cursive Greek manuscripts 137, 138, which Birch
had hastily reported as marking the passage with an asterisk,
each contains the marginal annotation given below, which claims
the passage as genuine, 138 with no asterisk at all, 137 (like 36
and others) with an ordinary mark of reference from the text to
the note, where (of course) it is repeated *. Other manuscripts
contain marginal scholia respecting it, of which the following is

' Of which supplement Dr. Hort says unexpectedly enough, ' In style it is
unlike the ordinary narratives of the Evangelists, but comparable to the four
introductory verses of St. Luke's Gospel ' (Introduction, p. 298).

' We ought to add that some Armenian codices which contain the paragraph
have the subscription ' Gospel after Mark ' at the end of ver. 8 as well as of
ver. 20, as though their scribes, like Cod. L's, knew of a double ending to the
Gospel.

' Burgon {Guardian, July 12, 1882) speaks of seven manuscripts (Codd. 538,
539 being among them) wherein these last twelve verses begin on the right hand
of the page. This would be more significant if a space were left, as is not stated,
at the foot of the preceding page. In Cod. 650 the first letter a is small, but
covers an abnormally large space

GOSPELS. MARK XVI. 9-2O. 339

the substance. Cod. 199 has rikos^ after e^ojSoCvro yap and
before 'Avacrras 8e', and in the same hand as riXos we read, ev
Tt(n T&v avTiypa^tav ov Keirai Tavra, aW ivTO-vQa Karairavei. The
kindred Codd. 20, 315, 300 (but after ver. 15, not ver. 8) mark
the omission in some (tkti) copies, adding iv be tois ap\a[oii irdvra
a-napaXiinTa Keirai, and these had been corrected from Jerusalem
copies (see pp. 161 and note, 193). Cod. 573 has for a subscrip-
tion fypa(f)r] koL avTfpXrjdr} bp,oiU)S €K t&v k<T'novbacrti,ivcav Ke(f>a\aCoi.s
<t\C: where Burgon, going back to St. Matthew's Gospel (see
p. 161, note) infers that the old Jerusalem copies must have
contained our twelve verses. Codd. 15, 22 conclude at e(j}oj3ovvTo
yap, then add in red ink that in some copies the Evangelist ends
here, ev iroWois 8e Kal ravTa cjieperai, affixing vers. 9-20. In Codd.
1, 205 (in its duplicate 206 also), 209 is the same notice, aXXois
standing for ttoWoij in 206, with the additional assertion that
Eusebius ' canonized ' no further than ver. 8, a statement which
is confirmed by the absence of the Ammonian and Eusebian
numerals beyond that verse in t^ALSU and at least eleven
cursives, with UTn. fuld. ing. of the Vulgate. It would be no
marvel if Eusebius, the author of this harmonizing system, had
consistently acted upon his own rash opinion respecting the
paragraph, an opinion which we shall have to notice presently,
and such action on his part would have added nothing to the
strength of the adverse case. But it does not seem that he really
did so. These numerals appear in most manuscripts, and in all
parts of them, with a good deal of variation which we can easily
account for. In the present instance they are annexed to ver. 9
and the rest of the passage in Codd. CEKVII, and (with some
changes) in GHMFAA and many others : in Cod. 566 the
concluding sections are there (a-Xb ver. 11, aXe ver. 12, aXs
ver. 14) without the canons. In their respective margins the
annotated codices 12 (of Scholz), 24, 36, 37, 40, 41, 108, 129, 137,
138, 143, 181, 186, 195, 210, 221, 222, 237, 238, 255, 259, 299,
329, 374 (twenty-four in all), present in substance^ the same

' Of course no notice is to be taken of t^Xos after icpo^ovvro yap, as the end of
the ecclesiastical lesson is all that is intimated. The grievous misstatements
of preceding critics from Wetstein and Scholz down to Tischendorf, have been
corrected throughout by means of Burgon's laborious researches (Burgon, pp.
114-123).

' The minute variations between these several codices are given by Burgon
(Appendix E, pp. 288-90). Cod. 255 contains a scholion imputed to Eusebius,

Z 3

340 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

weighty testimony in favour of the passage : -napa wXeio-roty avTi-
ypdcjiois ov KdTM (thus far also Cod. 119, adding only raSra, aW
evravda KaTa-navet) kv r(o irapovTi. ivayyiXi<^, <as voda voixCaavres awa
eimf aWa ^jaeis ef aKpi/3d>v avTi.ypa<l}cov iv -aKeicTTOis evpovres avra kol
Kura TO IlaXaicmvaLov ivayyikiov Map/cou, ojs Ix^' h ak-qdiia, (rvvreOei-
Kuixev KOL TTjv ev avT<S eT!i(^epop.ivy\v hea-i!OTi.KT]v avaa-racnv. Now this
is none other than an extract from Victor of Antioch's [v] com-
mentary on St. Mark, which they all annex in full to the sacred
text, and which is expressly assigned to that Father in Codd. 1 3,
37, 41. Yet these very twenty-four manuscripts have been cited
by critical editors as adverse to the authenticity of a paragraph
which their scribes never dreamt of calling into question, but
had simply copied Victor's decided judgement in its favour. His
appeal to the famous Palestine codices which had belonged
to Origen and Pamphilus [see p. 55 and note), is found in
twenty-one of them, possibly these documents are akin to the
Jerusalem copies mentioned in Codd. Evan. A, 20, 164, 262,
300, &c.

All other codices, e. g. ACD (which is defective from ver. 15,
prima manu) EF^GH (begins ver. 14) KMSUVXrAH, 33, 69,
the Peshitto, Jerusalem and Curetonian Syriac (which last, by
a singular happiness, contains vv. 17-20, though no other part
of St. Mark), the Harkleian text, the Sahidic (only ver. 20 is
preserved), the Bohairic and Ethiopic (with the exceptions
already named), the Gothic (to ver. 12), the Vulgate, all
extant Old Latins except Jc (though a 'prima manu and .6
are defective), the Georgian, the printed Armenian, its later
manuscripts, and all the lesser versions (Arabic, &c.), agree in
maintaining the paragraph. It is cited, possibly by Papias,
unquestionably by Irenaeus (both in Greek and Latin), by
TertuUian, and by Justin Martyr^ as early as the second

from which Griesbach had drawn inferences which Burgou (Last Twelve Verses,
ftc. Postscript, pp. 319-23) has shown to be unwarranted by the circumstances
of the case.

'■ Dr. C. Taylor, Master of St. John's College, Cambridge, in The Expositor for
July, 1893, quotes more evidence from Justin Martyr — hinting that some also
remains behind — proving that that Father was familiar with these verses. Also
he cites several passages from the Epistle of Barnabas in which traces of them
occur, and from the Quartodeciman controversy, and from Clement of Eome.
The value of the evidence which Dr. Taylor's acute vision has discovered consists
chiefly in its cumulative force. From familiarity with the passage numerous
traces of it arose ; or as Dr. Taylor takes the case reversely, from the fact of the

GOSPELS. MARK XVI. 9-2O. 34I

century ; by Hippolytus (see Tregelles, An Account of the Printed
Text, p. 252), by Vincentius at the seventh Council of Carthage^
by the Acta Pilati, the Apostolic Constitutions, and apparently
by Celsus in the third ; by Aphraates (in a Syriac Homily
dated A. D. 337), the Syriac Table of Canons, Eusebius, Macarius
Magnes, Didymus, the Syriac Acts of the Apostles, Leontius,
Ps.-Ephraem, Jerome, Cyril of Jerusalem 1, Epiphanius, Ambrose,
Augustine, Chrysostom, in the fourth ; by Leo, Nestorius, Cyril
of Alexandria, Victor of Antioch, Patricius, Marius Mercator, in
the fifth ; by Hesychius, Gregentius, Prosper, John, abp. of
Thessalonica, and Modestus, in the fifth and sixth 2. Add to this,
what has been so forcibly stated by Burgon [ubi supra, p. 205),
that in the Calendar of Greek Church lessons, which existed
certainly in the fourth century, very probably much earlier, the
disputed verses were honoured by being read as a special matins
service for Ascension Day (see p. 81), and as the Gospel for
St. Mary Magdalene's Day, July 22 (p. 89) ; as well as by
forming the third of the eleven evayyiXia avaa-rdaiixa kcadiva, the
preceding part of the chapter forming the second (p. 85) : so little
were they suspected as of even doubtful authenticity ^.

The earliest objector to vers. 9-20 we know of was Eusebius
(Quaest. ad Marin.), who tells that they were not ev airao-t tois
avTiypdct)ois, but after e^o/SoOzro yap that to. e^fjs are found (r-naviui's
ev Ticriv, yet not in to uKpiprj : language which Jerome twice echoes
and- almost exaggerates by saying ' in raris fertur Evangeliis,
omnibus Graeciae libris paene hoc capitulum fine non habenti-

oeeurrence of numerous traces evident to a close observer, it is manifest that
there pre-existed in the minds of the writers a familiarity vrith the language of
the verses in question.

^ It is surprising that Dr. Hort, who lays very undue stress upon the silence
of certain early Christian writers that had no occasion for quoting the twelve
verses in their extant works, should say of Cyril of Jerusalem, who lived about
A. D. 349 , that his ' negative evidence is peculiarly cogent ' (Notes, p. 37). To
our mind it is not at all negative. Preaching on a Sunday, he reminds his
hearers of a sermon he had delivered the day before, and which he would have
them keep in their thoughts. One of the topics he briefly recalls is the article
of the Creed tov KaSiaaina ex Se^iSiv toC irarpos. He must inevitably have used
Mark xvi. 19 in his Saturday's discourse.

" Several of these references are derived from ' The Revision Revised,' p. 423.

° Nor were these verses used in the Greek Church only. Vers. 9-20 comprised
the Gospel for Easter Monday in the old Spanish or Mozarabic Liturgy, for
Easter Tuesday among the Syrian Jacobites, for Ascension Day among the Arme-
nians. Vers. 12-20 was the Gospel for Ascension Day in the Coptic Liturgy
(Malan, Original Documents, iv. p. 63) : vers. 16-20 in the old Latin Comes.

342 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES;

buft.' A second cause with Eusebius for rejecting them is ^dAiora
etwep ixoiev avTikoylav rfj t&v komStv evayyeXicTT&v \j.apTVpiq.^. The
language of Eusebius has been minutely examined by Dean
Burgon, who proves to demonstration that all the subsequent
evidence which has been alleged against the passage, whether of
Severus, or Hesychius, or any other writer down to Euthymiua
Zigabenus in the twelfth century, is a mere echo of the doubts
and difficulties of Eusebius, if indeed he is not retailing to us
at second-hand one of the fanciful Biblical speculations of Origen.
Jerome's recklessness in statement has been already noticed
(Vol. II. p. 269) ; besides that, he is a witness on the other side,
both in his own quotations of the passage and in the Vulgate,
for how could he have inserted the verses there, if he had
judged them to be spurious?

With regard to the argument against these twelve verses
arising from their alleged difference in style from the rest of
the Gospel, I must say that the same process might be applied —
and has been applied — to prove that St. Paul was not the writer
of the Pastoral Epistles (to say nothing of that to the Hebrews),
St. John of the Apocalypse, Isaiah and Zechariah of portions of
those prophecies that bear their names. Every one lised to
literary composition may detect, if he will, such minute varia-
tions as have been made so much of in this case ^, either in his
own writings, or in those of the authors he is most familiar with.

Persons who, like Eusebius, devoted themselves to the pious

' To get rid of one apparent d.vn<j>aivla, that arising from the expression itpoA rg
lua ToC aa^pdrov (sic), ver. 9, compared with itfii aaffParav Matt, xxviii. 1, Euse-
bius proposes the plan of setting a stop between 'Avaaras Si and Trpoit, so little
was he satisfied with rudely expunging the whole clause. Hence Cod. E puts
a red cross after Si : Codd. 20, 22, 34, 72, 193, 196, 199, 271, 346, 405, 411, 456,
have a colon : Codd. 332, 339, 340, 439, a comma (Burgon, Guardian, Aug. 20,
1873).

^ The following peculiarities have been noticed in these verses : Ixtivos used
absolutely, vers. 10, 11, 13 ; iropeioimi vers. 10, 12, 15 ; Tofs ^ct' airov ytvo/iivois
ver. 10 ; etioimi vers. 11, 14 ; dnariw vers. 11, 16 ; inerd ravra ver. 12 ; eVcpos ver.
12 ; ■napaKoKovBia ver. 17 ; iv tZ dvo/taTi ver. 17 ; Kvpios for the Saviour, vers. 19,
20 ; travTaxov, (TwepyowTos, 0e0ai6a, inaKoKovBia ver. 20, all of them as not found
elsewhere in St. Mark. A very able and really conclusive plea for the genuine-
ness of the paragraph, as coming from that Evangelist's pen, appeared in the
Baptist Quarterly, Philadelphia, July, 1869, bearing the signature of Professor
J. A. Broadus, of South Carolina. Unfortunately, from the nature of the case,
it does not admit of abridgement. Burgon's ninth chapter (pp. 136-190) enters
into full details, and amply justifies his conclusion that the supposed adverse
argument from phraseology ' breaks down hopelessly under severe analysis.'

GOSPELS. MARK XVI. 9-2O. 343

task of constructing harmonies of the Gospels, would soon perceive
the difficulty of adjusting the events recorded in vers. 9-20 to the
narratives of the other Evangelists. Alford regards this incon-
sistency (more apparent than real, we believe) as ' a valuable
testimony to the antiquity of the fragment ' (N. T. ad loc.) :
we would go further, and claim for the harder reading the
benefit of anj' critical doubt as to its genuineness (Canon I.
Vol. II. p. 247). The difficulty was both felt and Avowed by
Eusebius, and was recited after him by Severus of Antioch or
whoever wrote the scholion attributed to him. Whatever
Jerome and the rest may have done, these assigned the avriXoyia,
the ivavTiu^(ns they thought they perceived, as a reason (not the
first, nor perhaps the chief, but still as a reason) for supposing
that the Gospel ended with i^ofiovvro yap. Yet in the balance of
probabilities, can anything be more unlikely than that St. Mark
broke off so abruptly as this hypothesis would imply, while no
ancient writer has noticed or seemed conscious of any such
abruptness^? This fact has driven those who reject the con-
cluding verses to the strangest fancies ; — namely, that, like
Thucydides, the Evangelist was cut off before his work was
completed, or even that the last leaf of the original Gospel was
torn away.

We emphatically deny that such wild surmises^ are called

^ ' Can any one, who knows the character of the Lord and of His ministry,
conceive for an instant that we should be left with nothing but a message
baulked through the alarm of women' (Kelly, Lectures Introductory to the
Gospels, p. 258 ). Even Dr. Hort can say ' It is incredible that the Evangelist
deliberately concluded either a paragraph with kcpoPovvro yap, or the Gospel with
a, petty detail of a secondary event, leaving his narrative hanging in the air '
(Notes, p. 46).

* When Burgon ventures upon a surmise, one which is probability itself by
the side of those we have been speaking of, Professor Abbot {ubi supra, p. 197)
remarks upon it that ' With Mr. Burgon a conjecture seems to be a demonstra-
tion.' We will not be deten-ed by dread of any such reproach from mentioning
his method of accounting for the absence of these verses from some very early
copies, commending it to the reader for what it may seem worth. After a
learned and exhaustive proof that the Church lessons, as we now have them,
existed from very early times (Twelve Verses, pp. 191-211), and noting that
an important lesson ended with Mark xvi. 8 (see Calendar of Lessons) ; he
supposes that Te\os, which would stand at the end of such a lesson, misled
some scribe who had before him an exemplar of the Gospels whose last leaf
(containing Mark xvi. 9-20, or according to Codd. 20, 215, 300 only vers. 16-20)
was lost, as it might easily be in those older manuscripts wherein St. Mark
stood last.

344 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

for by the state of the evidence in this case. All opposition to
the authenticity of the paragraph resolves itself into the allega-
tions of Eusebius and the testimony of i^B. Let us accord to these
the weight which is their due : but against their verdict we can
appeal to a vast body of ecclesiastical evidence reaching back to
the earlier part of the second century^ ; to nearly all the versions ;
and to all extant manuscripts excepting two, of which one is
doubtful. So powerfully is it vouched for, that many of those
who are reluctant to recognize St. Mark as its author, are content
to regard it notwithstanding as an integral portion of the inspired
record originally delivered to the Church ^.

13. Luke ii. 14. If there be one case more prominent than
another in the criticism of the New Testament, wherein solid
reason and pure taste revolt against the iron yoke of ancient
authorities, it is that of the Angelic Hymn sung at the Nativity.
Li the common text all is transparently clear :

hold, eN YS'icToic eecp, Glory to God in the highest,
KAi eni THc eipHNH" And on earth peace:

eN ANSptionoic eyioKiA. Good will amongst men.

The blessed words are distributed, after the Hebrew fashion, into
a stanza consisting of three members. In the first and second
lines heaven and earth are contrasted ; the third refers to both
those preceding, and alleges the efficient cause which has
brought God glory and earth peace. By the addition of a single
letter to the end of the last line, by merely reading evbodas for
eiSoKio, the rhythmical arrangement is utterly marred ^, and the
simple shepherds are sent away with a message, the diction of

• The Codex lately discovered by Mrs. Lewis is said to omit the verses. But
what is that against a host of other codices ? And when the other MS. of the
Curetoniau includes the verses? Positive testimony is worth more than
negative.

' Dr. Hort, however, while he admits the possibility of the leaf containing
vers. 9-20 having been lost in some very early copy, which thus would become
the parent of transcripts having a mutilated text (Notes, p. 49), rather incon-
sistently arrives at the conclusion that the passage in question 'manifestly
cannot claim any apostolic authority ; but it is doubtless founded on some
tradition of the apostolic age' {ibid. p. 51).

^ Dr. Hort will hardly find many friends for his division (Notes, p. 56),
A(S£a kv h^iaroLS $e^ leal inl yrjs^
Gpqvri iv dvBpamois evSoaias,

GOSPELS. LUKE II. I4. 345

■which no scholar has yet construed to his own mind^. Yet
such is the conclusion of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles,
Westcott and Hort, although Tregelles and the Cambridge
fellow-workers allow evboKia a place in their margins. Of the
five great uncials C is unfortunately defective, but X*AB*D, and
no other Greek manuscript whatever, read eiSoKiaj ; yet A is so
inconstant in this matter that in the primitive 14th or Morning
Hymn, a cento of Scripture texts, annexed to the Book of
Psalms, its reading is evboKeCa (Baber, Cod. Alex., p. 569), and
such was no doubt the form used in Divine service, as appears
from the great Zurich Psalter 0'*. The rest of the uncials
extant (K°B3EGHKLMPSUVrAAS, &c.), and all the cursives
follow the common text, which is upheld by the Bohairic, by the
three extant Syriac (the Peshitto most emphatically, the Jerusa-
lem, and the Harkleia.n both in the text and Greek margin), by
the Armenian and Ethiopia versions. The Vulgate, as is well
known, renders ' in hominibus bonae voluntatis,' and thus did all
the forms of the Old Latin, and after it the Gothic. Hence it
follows, as a matter of course, that the Latin Fathers, such as
Hilary and Augustine, and the Latin interpreters of Irenaeus
(who seems really to have omitted h, as do D and a few cursives)
and of the false Athanasius, adopted the reading of their own
Bibles. Origen also, in a passage not now extant in the Greek, is
made in Jerome's translation of it manifestly to choose the same
form. We can only say that in so doing he is the only Greek
who favours evhoKias, and his own text has evboKCa in three
several places, though no special stress is laid by him upon it.
But here comes in the evidence of the Greek Fathers — their
virtually unanimous evidence — with an authority from which
there is, or ought to be, no appeal. Dean Burgon (The Kevision
Kevised, pp. 42-46) affords us a list of forty-seven, all speaking
in a manner too plain for doubt, most of them several times
over, twenty-two of them having flourished before the end of the

' I am loth to sully with a semblance of unseasonable levity a page which is
devoted to the vindication of the true form of the Angelic Hymn, and must ask
the student to refer for himself to the 470th number of the Spectatm; where what
we will venture to call a precisely parallel case exercises the delicate humour
of Addison. 'So many ancient manuscripts,' he tells us, concur in this last
reading, ' that I am very much in doubt whether it ought not to take place.
There are but two reasons which incline me to the reading as I have published
it : first, because the rhyme, and secondly, because the sense, is preserved by it.'

346 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

fifth century, and who must have used codices at least as old and
pure as t< or B. They are Irenaeus, of the second century; the
Apostolical Constitutions and Origen three times in the third;
Eusebius, Aphraates the Persian, Titus of Bostra, Didymus,
Gregory Nazianzen, Cyril of Jerusalem (who has been quoted in
error on the wrong side), Epiphanius, Gregory of Nyssa four
times, Ephraem Syrus, Philo of Carpasus, a nameless pi-eacher
at Antioch, and Chrysostom (nine times over, interpreting also
evboKia by KaraWayri) in the fourth ; Cyril of Alexandria on
fourteen occasions, Theodoret on four, Theodotus of Ancyra, the
Patriarch Proclus, Paulus of Emesa, the Eastern Bishops at
Ephesus in 431, and Basil of Seleucia in the fifth; Cosmas
Indicopleustes, Anastasius Sinaita, and Eulogius of Alexandria
in the sixth ; Andreas of Crete in the seventh ; with Cosmas of
Maiuma, John Damascene, and Germanus, Archbishop of Con-
stantinople, in the eighth 1. Such testimony, supported by
aU later manuscripts, together with the Bohairic and Syriac
versions, cannot but overpower the transcriptional blunder of
some early scribe, who cannot, however, have lived later than the
second century.

To those with whom the evidence of NBD and of the Latins
united appears too mighty to resist, we would fain prefer one
request, that in their efforts to extract some tolerable sense out
of fvboKMs, they will not allow themselves to be driven to ren-
derings which the Greek language will not endure. To spoil
the metrical arrangement by forcing the second and third mem-
bers of the stanza into one, is in itself a sore injury to the
poetical symmetry of the passage, but from their point of view
it cannot be helped. When they shall come to translate, it wUl
be their endeavour to be faithful, if grammatical faithfulness be
possible in a case so desperate. ' Peace on earth for those that
will have it,' as Dean Alford truly says, is untenable in Greek,
as well as in theology : ' among men of good pleasure ' is unin^
telligible to most minds. Professor Milligan (Words of the New
Testament, p. 194) praises as an interesting form * among men of
his good pleasure,' which, not at all unnecessarily, he expounds
to signify ' among men whom He hath loved.' Again, ' among
men in whom He is well pleased ' (compare chap. iii. 22) can

^ This torrent of testimony includes ninety-two places, of which ' Tisohendorf
knew of only eleven, Tregelles adduces only six' (K. E., p. 45, note).

GOSPELS. LUKE H. I4 ; VI. I. 347

be arrived at only through some process which would make any
phrase bear almost any meaning the translator might like to put
upon it. The construction adopted by Origen as rendered by
Jerome, paa; enim quam non dot Bominus non est pax bonae
voluntatis, evbonCas being joined with dprivj], is regarded by Dr.
Hort 'to deserve serious attention, if no better interpretation
were available' and for the trajection he compares ch. xix. 38 ;
Heb. xii. 11 (Notes, p. 56). Dr. Westcott holds that since
! avdpdmois evboKias is undoubtedly a difficult phrase, and the
antithesis of yrjs and avdpdmois agrees with Eom. viii. 22, evhoKla
claims a place in the margin ' (ibid.) : no very great concession,
when the general state of the evidence is borne in mind \

13. Luke vi. 1. 'EyeVero b\ iv cra/8/3aTU bevrepoirpdra.
Here again Codd. HB coincide in a reading which cannot be
approved, omitting bevrepoTrp^Ta by way of getting rid of
a difficulty, as do both of them in Mark xvi. 9-20, and N in
Matt, xxiii. 35. The very obscurity of the expression, which
does not occur in the parallel Gospels or elsewhere, attests
strongly to its genuineness, if there be any truth at all in canons
of internal evidence ^ : not to mention that the expression ev
hipa (raj3j3dT<f ver. 6 favours the notion that the previous sabbath

' Every word uttered by such a scholar as Dr. Field (d. 1885) is so valuable
that no apology can be needed for citing the following critique from his charming
' Otium Norvicense,' Part iii. p. 36, on the reading eiSoKias and the rendering
' among men in whom he is well pleased.' ' To which it may be briefly
objected (1) that it ruins the stichometry ; (2) that it separates ev from evSoKia,
the word with which it is normally construed ; (3) that " men of good pleasure "
(fiSl ''P'???) would be, according to Graeco-biblical usage, not avBponroi eiSoxias,
but avSpis eiSoKias ; (4) that the turn of the sentence, ey avOp&irois eiSoicia, very
much resembles the second clause of Prov. 3dv. 9 : jisi DntJ''' p^^, rendered
by Symmachus «al dvaitiaov ci9iwv liSojiia.' But this is almost slaying the slain.

' Kvpiaxij SevTepowpiiTr] is cited by Sophocles in his lexicon from 'Eustr.
2381 B ' in the sense of low Sunday (McClellan, N. T., p. 690). Canon Cook
conjectures that it may mean the first sabbath in the second month (lyar),
precisely the time when wheat would be fully ripe (Revised Version, p. 69).
[More probably it is ' the first sabbath after the second day of the Passover.']
On the other hand, ' If the word be a reality and originally in the text, its
meaning, since in that case it must have been borrowed from something in
the Jewish calendar, would have been traditionally known from the first.'
(Green, Course of Developed Criticism, p. 56. ) But why would it ? The fancy
that SivTipoTTpinif had its origin in numerals of reference (B A) set in the
margin will most commend itself to such scholars as are under the self-
jmposed necessity of upholding Codd. NB united against all other evidence, of
whatever kind.

348 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

had been definitely indicated. Besides HiB, biVTepo-nparis^ is absent
from L, 1, 22, 33, 69 (where it is inserted in the margin by
W. Chark, and should not be noticed, see above), 118, 157, 209.
A few (Rr, 13, 117, 124 primd manu, 235) prefer bevrepm
irpdria, which, as the student will perceive, differs from the
common reading only by a familiar itacism. As this verse
commences a Church lesson (that for the seventh day or Sabbath
of the third week of the new year, see Calendar), Evangelistaria
leave out, as usual, the notes of time; in Evst. 150, 222, 234, 257,
259 (and no doubt in other such books, certainly in the Jerusalem
Syriac), the section thus begins, 'Eiropevero 6 'lijo-oSs tois aajSjBaaiv :
this however is not, properly speaking, a various reading at all.
Nor ought we to wonder if versions pass over altogether what
their translators could not understand ^, so that we may easily
account for the silence of the Peshitto Syriac, Bohairic, and
Ethiopic, of the Old Latin bclqf (secundd manu) ^,and (if they
were worth notice) of the Persic and the Polyglott Arabic, though
both the Roman and Erpenius' Arabic have bevrepf, and so too
the Ethiopic according to Scholz ; e ' sabbato mane,' / ' sabbato
a primo : ' the Harkleian Syriac, which renders the word, notes
in the margin its absence from some copies. Against this
list of authorities, few in number, and doubtful as many of
them are, we have to place the Old Latin af*ff^g^-^, all copies
of the Vulgate, its ally the Armenian, the Gothic and Harkleian
Syriac translations, the uncial codices ACDEHKMRSUVXrAAII,
all cursives except the seven cited above, and the Fathers or
scholiasts who have tried, with whatever success, to explain the
term : viz. Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Isidore of Pelusium, Pseudo-
Caesarius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Jerome ^, Ambrose (all very
expressly, as may be seen in Tischendorfs note, and in Dean
Burgon's 'The Revision Revised,' pp. 73-4), Clement of
Alexandria probably, and later writers. Lachmann and Alford

' Just as Jerome, speaking of the latter part of i Cor. Tii. 35, says, ' In lat.
Codd. OE TRANSLATiOKis DiFricuLTATEM hoc penitus non invenitur.' (Vallars. iii
261, as Burgon points out.)

^ Dr. Hort and the Quarierly Bemewer (Octoher, 1881, p. 348) almost simul-
taneously called attention to the question put by Jerome to his teacher Gregory
of N.azianzus as to the meaning of this word. 'Docebo te super hao re in
eeclesia ' was the only reply he obtained ; on which Jerome's comment is,
Eleganter tej( (Hier. ad Nepotianum, Ep. 52). Neither of these great Fathers
could explain a term which neither doubted to be written by the Evangelist.

GOSPELS. LUKE VI. I ; X. 4I, 42. 349

place bevTepoTrpcoTio within brackets, Tregelles rejects it, as does
Tischendorf in his earlier editions, but restores it in his seventh
and eighth, in the latter contrary to Cod. i^. Westcott and
Hort banish it to the margin, intimating (if I understand their
notation aright) that it seems to contain distinctive and fresh
matter, without deserving a place in the text even as well as
'Irjo-ov in Matt. i. 18. On reviewing the whole mass of evidence,
internal and external, we submit the present as a clear instance
in which the two oldest copies conspire in a false or highly
improbable reading, and of a signal exemplification of the Canon,
Proclivi orationi praesiai ardua.

14. Luke x. 41, 42. 'Evos U eo-ri xP^ia. This solemn
speech of our Divine Master has shaken many a pulpit, and
sanctified many a life. We might be almost content to estimate
Cod. B's claim to paramount consideration as a primary authority
by the treatment this passage receives from the hand of its
scribe, at least if the judgement were to rest with those who are
willing to admit that a small minority, whereof B happens to
form one of the members, is not necessarily in the right. West-
cott and Hort in the margin of their published edition (1881)
reduce the whole sentence between Ma,p6a ver. 41 and MapCa
ver. 42 to the single word Oopv^aCu, the truer reading in the
place of TvpfidCii '• ^^ their privately circulated issue dated te;a
years earlier they had gone further, placing within double
brackets ixepiixvas Kai and from Trepi iroXAa downwards. They
could hardly do less on the principles they have adopted, while
yet they feel constrained to concede that, though not belonging
to the original Gospel, the excluded words do not, on the other
hand, read like the invention of a paraphrast. They do not
indeed : and it is when abstract theories such as modern critics
have devised are subjected to so violent a strain, that we can
best discern their intrinsic weakness, of which indeed these
editors have here shown their consciousness by a change of mind
not at all usual with them. For the grave omission indicated
above we have but one class of authorities, that of the D, aheff^
i I, and Ambrose, the Latins omitting 6opvj3dCri too : while evbs
hi icTTi xpf'"' is not found in c also, and does not appear in
Clement. The succeeding ydp or be is of course left out by all
these, and by 262, the Vulgate, Curetonian Syriac, Armenian,

350 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

and Jerome. This testimony, almost purely Western, is confirmed
or weakened as the case ma}' be, by the systematic omissions of
clauses towards the end of the Gospel in the same books, of
which we spoke in Chap. X (see p. 299, note).

We confess that we had rather see this grand passage expunged
altogether from the pages of the Gospel than diluted after the
wretched fashion adopted by t< and B : okiyuiv 6e XP^'" ecmv r\
kv6r the first hand of >< omitting xpft« in its usual blundering
way. This travestie of a speech Which seems to have shocked
the timorous by its uncompromising exclusiveness, much as we
saw in the case of Matt. v. 23, is further supported (with some
variation in the order) by L, by the very ancient second hand of
C, by 1, 33, the Bohairic, Ethiopic, the margin of the Harkleian,
/* I +ui^ by Basil, Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria in the Syriac translation
^ ' of his commentary ^, and by Origen as cited in a catena : d\iycoy

6e kuTi xpda is found in 38, the Jerusalem Syriac, and in the
Armenian (o38e being inserted before ea-nv). This latter reading
is less incredible than that of t<5BL, notwithstanding the ingenuity
of Basil's comment, 6Xiyu>v jxev SjjAozoti r&v irpos ■Kapaa-Kivrjv, hbs
be Tov a-KOTTov. In this instance, as in some others, the force of
internal evidence suffices to convince the unprejudiced reader
(it has almost convinced Drs. Westcott and Hort, who have no
note on the passage), that the Received text should here remain
unchanged, vouched for as it is by AC*EFGHKMPSUVrAAn
(X and S being defective), by every cursive except three, by the
Peshitto and Cureton's Syriac (the latter so often met with in'
the company of D), by the Harkleian text, hjfg^ d'^X^ of the -A
Old Latin, and by the Vulgate. Chrysostom, Augustine (twice),
John Damascene and one or two others complete the list : even
Basil so cites the passage once, so that his comment may not be
intended for anything more than a gloss. No nobler sermon
was ever preached on this fertile text than that of Augustine,
De verbis Domini, in Evan. Luc. xxvii. His Old Latin copies,
at any rate, contained the words ' Circa multa es occupata : porro
unum est necessarium. Jam hoc sibi Maria legit.' 'Transit
labor raultitudinis, et remanet caritas unitatis ' is his emphatic
comment.

' Cyril applies the -whole passage to enforce the duty of exercising with
frugality the Christian duty of entertaining strangers : ■ And this He did for
our benefit, that He might fix a limit to hospitality' (Dean Payne Smith's
Translation, pp. 317-20).

GOSPELS. LUKE X. 4I, 42; XXIL I7-2O. 35I

15. Luke xxii. 17-20. This passage has been made the
subject of a most instructive discussion by Dean Blakesley^
(d. 1885), whose notion respecting it deserves more consideration
than it would seem to have received, though it must no doubt be
ultimately set aside through the overpowering weight of hostile
authority. He is perplexed by two difficulties lying on the
surface, the fact that the Lord twice took a cup, before and after
the breaking of the bread ; and the close resemblance borne by
vv. 19 and 20 to the parallel passage of St. Paul, i Cor. xi. 24,
25. The common mode of accounting for the latter phenomenon
seems very reasonable, namely, that the Evangelist, Paul's almost
constant companion in travel, copied into his Gospel the very
language of the Apostle, so far as it suited his design. In
speaking of the two cups St. Luke stands alone, and much trouble
has been taken to illustrate the use of the Paschal cup from
Maimonides [d. 1206] and other Jewish doctors, all too modern
to be implicitly depended on. Dean Alford indeed (N.T. ad loc.)
hails 'this most important addition to our narrative,' which
' amounts, I believe, to a solemn declaration of the fulfilment of
the Passover rite, in both its usual divisions — the eating of the
lamb, and drinking the cup of thanksgiving.' Thus regarded,
the old rite would be concluded and abrogated in vv. 17, 18 ;
the new rite instituted in vv. 19, 20. To Dean Blakesley all
this appears wholly unsatisfactory, and he resorts for help to our
critical authorities. He first gets rid of the words of ver. 19
after o-wjuct jxov, and of all ver. 20, and so far his course is
sanctioned by Westcott and Hort, who place the whole passage
within their double brackets, and pronounce it a perverse in-
terpolation from I Cor. xi. 24, 25. This much accomplished,
the cup is now mentioned but once, but with this awkward
peculiarity, that it precedes the bread in the order of taking
and blessing, which is a downright contradiction of St. Matthew
(xxvi. 26-29) and of St. Mark (xiv. 22-25), as well as of
St. Paul. Here Westcott and Hort refuse to be carried further,
and thus leave the remedy worse than the disease ^, if indeed

' Praeleotio in Scholis Cantabrigiensibus habita Pebruarii die deoimo quarto,
MDCccfL, qua . . . Lucae perieopam (xxii. 17-20) multis ante saeoulis conturbatam
vetustissimorum ope oodicum in priatinam formam restituebat, Cathedram
Theologicam ambiens, J. W. Blakesley, S. T. B., Coll. SS. Trinitatis nuper
Socius (Cambridge, 1850).

' 'Intrinsically both readings are difficult, but in unequal degrees. The

352 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

there be any disease to remedy. Dean Blakesley boldly places
Luke xxii. 19 (ending at a-&ij.d iJ,ov) before ver. 17, and his work
is done : the paragraph thus remodelled is self-consistent, but it
is robbed of everything which has hitherto made it a distinctive
narrative, supplementing as well as confirming those of the
other two Evangelists.

Now for the last step in Dean Blakesley's process of emenda-
tion, the transposition of ver. 19 before ver. 17, there is no other
authority save 6 e of the Old Latin and Cureton's Syriac, the
last with this grave objection in his eyes, that it exhibits the
whole of ver. 19, including that tovto TroieXre els rriv kjj,7]V avaiMn](nv
which he would regard as specially belonging of right, and as
most suitable for, St. Paul's narrative (Praelectio, p. 16), although
Justin Martyr cites the expression with the prelude ot yap
CLTTOa-ToXoi Iv rois yivojj.ivois vii avT&v cmoiJivr^ixovevixacrLV, h KaXetrat
evayyekia. The later portion of ver. 19 and the whole of ver. 20,
as included in the double brackets of Westcott and Hort, are
absent from Cod. D, and of the Latins from a h effi I, as is ver.
20 from the Curetonian Syriac also : authorities for the most
part the same as we had to deal with in our Chap. X. p. 299,
note. Another, and yet more violent remedy, to provide
against the double mention of the cup, is found in the utter
omission of vers. 17, 18 in Evst. 32 and the editio princeps of the
Peshitto Syriac, countenanced by many manuscripts of the same ^.
Thus both the chief Syriac translations found a difficulty here,
though they remedied it in different ways ^.

The scheme of Dean Blakesley is put forth with rare inge-
nuity ^ and maintained with a boldness which is best engendered

difficulty of the shorter reading [that of pure omisaion in vers. 19, 20] consists
exclusively in the change of order, as to the Bread and the Cup, which is
illustrated by many phenomena of the relation between the narratives of the
third and of the first two Gospels, and which finds an exact parallel in the
change of order in St. Luke's account of the Temptation' (iv. 5-8 ; 9-12). Hort,
Notes, p. 64.

' Adler says 'in omnibus codicibus,' and guelph. heidelb. Dawkins iii and
xvii in Jones, and cod. Eich are specified. Lee sets the verses in a parenthesis.
But the Curetonian has them after ver. 19 in woi'ds but little differing from
his or Sehaaf s.

^ 'Si fides habenda A, F. Gorio "in Conspectu Quattuor Codieum Evangeli-
orum Syriacorum mirae aetatis" apud Blanchini Evangelium Quadruplexp.nxL,
et hi quattuor Codices cum Veronensi [6] faciunt.' Blakesley, Schema facing
Praelectio, p. 20.

^ Especially mark his mode of dealing with Ikxvvv6ii.(vov ver. 20, which by

GOSPELS. LUKE XXU. I7-20 ; XXIL 43, 44. 353

and nourished by closing the eyes to the strength of the adverse
case. We have carefully enumerated the authorities of every
kind which make for him, a slender roll indeed. When it is stated
that the Eeceived text (with only slight and ordinary variations)
is upheld by Codd. NABCEFGHKLM {hiant PK) SUXVPAAn,
by all cursives and versions, except those already accounted for,
it will be seen that his view of the passage can never pass
beyond the region of speculation, until the whole system of
Biblical Criticism is revolutionized by means of new discoveries
which it seems at present vain to look for.

16. Luke xxii. 43, 44. &(j)6r] be avT(a ayyeXos dir' ovpavov ev-
layyuiv avTov. km yevojxevos ev aytaviq, eKTfvecmpov Ttpoa-rjij^eTO'
eyeviTo 8e 6 Ibpcbs avrov axrel 6p6p,^oi ai/xaros Kara^aivovres ctti ttjv
yrjv. It is a positive relief to know that any lingering doubt
which may have hung over the authenticity of these verses,
whose sacred words the devout reader of Scripture could so ill
spare, is completely dissipated by their being contained in Cod. i^ ^.
The two verses are omitted in ABET, 124, 561 (in 13 only &(f)dr]
be is prima manu), in/ of the Old Latin, in at least ten manu-
scripts of the Bohairic ^, with some Sahidic and Armenian codices.
A, however, whose inconsistency we had to note when consider-
ing ch. ii. 14, affixes to the latter part of ver. 42 (ttAtjji;), 'to

a little violence (not quite unprecedented) is made to refer to irorripiov instead
of to a'lfiaTi : ' Ex Matthaeo vel Marco accessit clausula ista ri iiirip vixSiv iicxvvv6-
fifvov, fraude tamen ita pia accessit, ut potius grammaticis legibus vim facere,
quam vel literulam demutare maluerit interpolator. Ita fit ut vel hodie male
assutus pannus centonem prodat. Postulat enim sermonis ratio, ut euivis
patet, T^J inrlp ifmiv kKxvvofJLevtji, non rd virip vpSiv iKX^vopLiVOVj quod tamen in
Matthaeo Marcoque optime Graece dicebatur, cum subjeotum de quo praedica-
batur non rj SiaBriKri verum rd alpa esset ' {Praelectio, p. 22).

^ Very undue stress has been laid on Tischendorf s statement, ' Hos versus
A corrector uncis inclusit, partim etiam punctis notavit ; C vero puueta
et uncos delevit,' and ^5'' has sometimes been spoken of as only a little less
weighty than X itself. I had the satisfaction, through Dean Burgon's kindness,
of showing some of our critics, Dr. Hort included, a fine photograph of the
whole page. The points are nearly, if not quite, invisible, the unci are rude
slight curves at the beginning and end of the passage only, looking as likely
to have been scrawled fifty years since as fourteen hundred. Yet even now
Dr. Hort maintains that Tischendorf's decision is probably right, strangely
adding, ' but the point is of little consequence ' (Notes, p. 65).

' Bp. Ljghtfoot's Codd. 2, 4, 8, 9, 16, 17, 19, 22, 26 omit them altogether : they
are in the margin of 1, 20. They stand in the text of 3, 14, 21, and ?o in 18 prima
manu, but in smaller characters.

VOL, II. A a

354 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

which they cannot belong ' (Tregelles), the proper Ammonian and

any

Eusebian numerals for vv. 43-4 (i), and thus shows that its
scribe was acquainted with the passage^: some Armenian
codices leave out only ver. 44, as apparently does Evan. 559.
In Codd. r, 123, 344, 512, 569, (440 secundd manu in ver. 43)
the verses are obelized, and are marked by asterisks in ESVAII,
24, 36, 161, 166, 274, 408 : these, however, may very well be, and
in some copies doubtless are, lesson-marks for the guidance of
such as read the divine service (c/. sequent.). A scholion in Cod.
34 [xi] speaks of its absence from some copies ^. In all known
Evangelistaria and in their cognate Cod. 69* and its three
fellows, the two verses, omitted in this place, follow Matt. xxvi.
39, as a regular part of the lesson for the Thursday in Holy
Week : in the same place the margin of C {tertid manv) contains
the passage, C being defective in Luke xxii from ver. 19. In
Cod. 547 the tWo verses stand (in redder ink, with a scholion)
not only after Matt. xxvi. 39, but also in their proper place in
St. Luke^. Thus too Cod. 346, and the margin of Cod. 13.
Codd. LQ place the Ammonian sections and the number of the
Eusebian canons differently from the rest (but this kind of
irregularity very often occurs in manuscripts), and the Phi-
loxenian margin in one of Adler's manuscripts (Assem. 2) states
that it is not found ' in Evangeliis apud Aleomndrinos, prop-
tereaque [non ?] posuit eam S. Cyrillus in homilia . . . : ' the
fact being that the verSes are tiot found in Cyril's 'Homilies
on Luke,' published in Syriac at Oxford by Dean Payne Smith,

* Yet Dr. Hort contends that 'The testimony of A is not affected by the
presence of Eusebian numerals, of necessity misplaced, which manifestly pre-
suppose the inclusion of vv. 43, 44 : the discrepance merely shows that the
Biblical text and the Eusebian notation were taken by the scribe from different
sources, as they doubtless were throughout' (Notes, p. 65). It is just this
readiness to devise expedients to meet emergencies as they arise which is
at once the strength and the weakness of Dr. Hort's position as a textual
critic. These sections and canons illustrate the criticism of the text in some
other places : b. g. Matt. xvi. 2, 3 ; xvii. 21 ; ch. xxiii. 34 ; hardly in Luke
xxiv. 12.

^ 'IfTTeoi' Sti tA TTfpi Twv OpS/jtpoiv Tivci rSjv &vriypd<p(uv oiiK t-)(ovtjiv : adding that
the clause is cited by Dionysius the Areopagite, Gennadius, Epiphanius, and
other holy Fathers.

' Thus in Evst. 253 we find John xiii. 3-17 inserted una tmore between
Matt. xxvi. 20 and 21, as also Luke xxii. 43, 44 between vers. 39 and 40, with
no break whatever. So again in the same manuscript with the mixed lessons
for Good Friday.

GOSPELS. LUKE XXII. 43, 44. 355

nor does Athanasius ever allude to them. They are read,
however, in Codd. J^DFGHKLMQUXA, 1, and all other known
cursives, without any marks of suspicioUj in the Peshitto,
Curetonian (omitting air' ovpavov), Harkleian and Jerusalem
Syriac (this last obelized in the margin), the Ethiopic, in some
Sahidic, Bohairie, and Armenian manuscripts and editions, in
the Old Latin ahc eff^ g^-^il q, and the Vulgate. The effect of
this great preponderance is enhanced by the early and express
testimony of Fathers. Justin Martyr (Trypho, 103) cites Ibpas
Q)crel Opofi^oL as contained ev rois ai:oii,vrip,ove6p.a(nv a (ftrjiJLi i-nb
T&v aTTOcrroXcoi' avTov Koi tuv sKeCvois irapaKoXovdriaavTCOv (see Luke
i. 3, Alford) (rvvTeTaxOai. Irenaeus (iii. 222) declares that the
Lord tSpaxre 6p6p.^ovi alpLaros in the second century. In the
third, Hippolytus twice, Dionysius of Alexandiia, and Pseudo-
Tatian; in the fourth, Arius, Eusebius, Athanasius, Ephraem
Syrus, Didymus, Gregory of Nazianzen, Epiphanius, Chrysostom,
Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita ; in the fifth, Julian the heretic,
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius, Cyril of Alexandria, Paulus
of Emesa, Gennadius^ Theodoret, Bishops at Ephesus in 431 ;
and later writers such as Pseudo-Caesarius, Theodosius of Alex-
andria, John Damascene, Maximus, Theodore the heretic, Leontius
of Byzantium, Anastasius Sinaita, Photius, as well as Hilary,
Jerome, Augustine, Cassian, Paulinus, Facundus ^. Hilary, on the
other hand, declares that the passage is not found ' in Graecis et
in Latinis codicibus compluribus ' (p. 1062 a, Benedictine edition,
1693), a statement which Jerome, who leans much on others in
such matters, repeats to the echo. Epiphanius, however, in
a passage we have before alluded to (p. 270, note), charges
'the orthodox' with removing eK\av(re in ch. xix. 41, though
Irenaeus had used it against the Docetae, (pojBridevTes Kal jutj
vorjcravres avTov to riXos Kal to la^poTaTov, Kai yev6p,evos iv ayonvCa
tbpaae, Kal tyhiro 6 iSpooy ovroii us 6p6p,^oi aXfuiTos, Kal &<j>di,
&yyekos hia-xijuiv avTov : Epiphan. Ancor. xxxi ^. Davidson states

' ' Upwards of forty famous personages- from every part of ancient Christendom
recognize these verses as part of the Gospel ; fourteen of them being as old,
some of them being a great deal older, than our oldest manuscripts' (The
Revision Revised, p. 81).

" The reader will see that I have understood this passage, with Grotius, as
applying to an orthodox tampering with Luke xix. 41, not with xxii. 43, 44. As
the text of Epiphanius stands I cannot well do otherwise, since Mill's mode of
punctuation (,N. T., Proleg. § 797), which wholly separates icai ytvofievos from the

A a 2

356 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

that 'the Syrians are censured by Photius, the Armenians by
Nicon [x], Isaac the Catholic, and others, for expunging the
passage ' (Bibl. Critic, ii. p. 438).

Of all recent editors, before Westcott and Hort set them within
their double brackets, Lachmann alone had doubted the authen-
ticity of the verses, and enclosed them within brackets : but
for the accidental presence of the fragment Cod. Q his hard rule
— ' Tiiathematica recensendi ratio,' as Tischendorf terms it —
would have forced him to expunge them, unless indeed he judged
(which is probably true) that Cod. A makes as much in their
favour as against them. So far as the language of Epiphanius is
concerned, it does not appear that this passage was rejected by
the orthodox as repugnant to their notions of the Lord's Divine
character, and such may not have been at all the origin of the
variation. We have far more just cause for tracing the removal
of the paragraph from its proper place in St. Luke to the prac-
tice of the Lectionaries, whose principal lessons (such as those of
the Holy Week would be) were certainly settled in the Greek
Church as early as the fourth century {see above. Vol. I. pp. 74-7,
and notes). I remark with lively thankfulness that my friend
Professor Milligan does not disturb these precious verses in
his ' Words of the New Testament : ' and Mr. Hammond con-
cludes that ' on the whole there is no reasonable doubt upon the
passage.' Thus Canon Cook is surely justified in his strong
asseveration that ' supporting the whole passage we have an
array of authorities which, whether we regard their antiquity or
their character for sound judgement, veracity, and accuracy, are
scarcely paralleled on any occasion ' (Revised Version, p. 103).

17. Luke xxiii. 34. We soon light upon another passage
wherein the Procrustean laws of certain eminent editors are
irreconcileably at variance with their own Christian feeling and
critical instinct. No holy passage has been brought into dis-
repute on much slighter grounds than this speech of the Lord
upon the cross : the words from 'O be 'Itjo-oSs down to ttolovo-lv
are set within brackets by Lachmann, within double brackets by
Westcott and Hort. They are omitted by only BD*, 38, 435,

words immediately preceding, cannot be endured, and leaves ical t5 i(rxvp6TaTOV
unaccounted for. Yet I confess that there is no trace of any meddling with
eicKavire by any one, and I know not where Irenaeus cites it.

GOSPELS. LUKE XXII. 43, 44; XXIII. 34. 357

among the manuscripts : by E they are marked with an asterisk
(comp. Matt. xvi. 2, 3 ; ch. xxii. 43, 44) ; of i^ Tischendorf speaks
more cautiously than in the case of ch. xxii. 43, 44, ' A [a reviser]
(ut videtur) uncos apposuit, sed rursus deleti sunt,' and we saw
there how little cause there was for assigning the previous
omission to N*. In D the clause is inserted, with the proper
(Ammonian) section (r/c or 320), in a hand which cannot be earlier
than the ninth century [see Scrivener's Codex Bezae, facsimile
11, and Introd. p. xxvii). To this scanty list of authorities for
the omission we can only add a 6 of the Old Latin, the Latin
of Cod. D, the Sahidic version, two copies of the Bohairic ^,
and a passage in Arethas of the sixth century. Eusebius assigned
the section to his tenth table or canon, as it has no parallel
in the other three Gospels. The passage is contained with-
out a vestige of suspicion in KACFGHK (even L) M (Mat P)
QSUVrAAn, all other cursives (including 1, 33, 69), c efff" I,
the Vulgate, all four Syriac versions, all Bohairic codices except
the aforenamed two, the Armenian and Ethiopic. The Patristic
authorities for it are (as might be anticipated) express, varied, and
numerous : — such as Irenaeus and Origen in their Latin versions,
the dying words of St. James the Just as cited in Eusebius, Eccl.
Hist., lib. ii. cap. 23, after Hegesippus, cttI ttjs TrpwrT^s tQv oTroo-ro-
Xojz; yevofxevos biaboxrjs (Eus.), Hippolytus, the Apostolic Consti-
tutions twice, the Clementine Homilies, Ps.-Tatian, Archelaus
with Manes, Eusebius, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Theodorus
of Heraclea, Basil, Ephraem Syrus, Ps.-Ephraem, Ps.-Dionysius
Areopagita, Acta Pilati, Syriac Acts of the Apostles, Ps. -Ignatius,
Ps.-Justin, Cyril of Alexandria, Eutherius, Anastasius Sinaita,
Hesychius, Antiochus Monachus, Andreas of Crete, Ps.-Chrysos-
tom, Ps.-Amphilochius, Opus Imperfectum, Chrysostom often
(sometimes loosely enough more suo), Hilary, Ambrose eleven
times, Jerome twelve times, Augustine more than sixty times,
Theodoret, and John Damascene. Tischendorf adds — valeant
quantum — (but only a fraction of this evidence was known to
Tischendorf), the apocryphal Acta Pilati ^. It is almost incredible

' Lightfoot's Codd. 22, 26. The clause stands in the margin of 1, 20, in the
text of 2, 3, 8, 9, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23.

^ Dean Burgon (Kevision Kevised, p. 83), who refers to upwards of forty-
Fathers and more than 150 passages {see also Miller's Textual Guide, App. II),
bums with indignation as he sums up his results : ' And what (we ask the
question with sincere simplicity), what amount of evidence is calculated to

358 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

that acute and learned men should be able to set aside such a silva
of witness of every kind, chiefly because D is considered especially
weighty in its omissions, and B has to be held up, in practice if
not in profession, as virtually almost impeccable. Vain indeed is
the apology, ' Few verses of the Gospels bear in themselves a surer
witness to the truth of what they record than this first of the
Words from the Cross ; but it need not therefore have belonged
originally to the book in which it is now included. We cannot
doubt that it comes from an extraneous source ' (Hort, Notes,
p. 68. Nor can we on our pai-t doubt that the system which
entails such consequences is hopelessly self-condemned.

18. John i. 18. 6 ixovoyevrjs vl6s, 6 &>v els tov koX-hov tov
TTUTpos . . . This passage exhibits in a few ancient documents of
high consideration the remarkable variation deos for vlos, which
however, according to the form of writing universal in the oldest
codices (see Vol. I. pp. 15, 50), would require but the change of
a single letter, TC or ©C. In behalf of WC stand Codd. NBC
prima manu, and L (all wanting the article before ^t,ovoyivris, and
^5 omitting the 6 S)v that follows), 33 alone among cursive manu-
scripts (but prefixing to ii.ovoyevris, as does a later hand of
N), of the versions the Peshitto (not often found in such com-
pany), and the margin of the Harkleian (whose affinity with
Cod. L is very decided), the Ethiopic, and a host of Fathers,
some expressly (e. g. Clement of Alexandria, Didymus ' de
Trinitate,' Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria, &c.), others by
apparent reference (e. g. Gregory of Nyssa). The Egyptian
versions may have read either Qios or Geov, more probably the
latter, as Prebendary Malan translates for the Bohairic^, the

inspire undoubted confidence in any given reading, if not such a concurrence of
authorities as this ? We forbear to insist upon the probabilities of the case.
The Divine power and sweetness of the incident shall not be enlarged upon.
We introduce no considerations resulting from internal evidence. Let this
verse of Scripture stand or fall as it meets with sufficient external testimony, or
is clearly forsaken thereby.'

^ ' Gospel according to St. John from eleven versions,' 1872, p. 8. Dr. Malan
also translates in the same way the Peshitto 'the only Sou of God' and its
satellite the Persic of the Polyglott as ' the only one of God.' With much
deference to a profound scholar, I do not see how such a rendering is possible in
the Peshitto : it is precisely that which ho gives in ch. iii. 18, where the Syriao
inserts ? o)»s. Bp. Lightfoot judges Bi6s the more likely rendering of the
Bohairic, though Siov is possible.

GOSPELS. JOHN I. l8. 359

Sahidic being here lost. Their testimonies are elaborately set
forth by Tregelles, who strenuously maintains Oeos as the true
reading, and thinks it much that Arius, though ' opposed to the
dogma taught,' upholds [j.ovoyevris 0e6s. It may be that the term
suits that heretic's system better than it does the Catholic doc-
trine : it certainly does not confute it. For the received reading
vlos we can allege AC {tertid manu) EFGHKMSUVXAAn (D
and the other uncials being defective), every cursive manuscript
except 33 (including Tregelles' allies 1, 69), all the Latin versions,
the Curetonian, Harkleian, and Jerusalem Syriac, the Georgian
and Slavonic, the Armenian and Piatt's Ethiopic, the Anglo-
Saxon and Arabic. The array of Fathers is less imposing, but
includes Athanasius (often), Chrysostom, and the Latin writers
down from Tertullian. Origen, Eusebius, and some others have
both readings. Cyril of Jerusalem quotes without vlos or Oeos, —
ov avOpdiraiv fxev ovbels edpaKeV 6 iJ,ovoyevr]s be jxovos i^yrjaaTo.
C. 7, 1. 27, p. 107, ed. Oxon., Pereira.

Tregelles, who seldom notices internal probabilities in his
critical notes, here pleads that an Sira^ Xey6iJ,evov like ij.ovoyevr]s
deos ^ might easily be changed by copyists into the more famiKar
6 iJiovoyevr]s vlos from John iii. 16 ; 18 ; i John iv. 9, and he would
therefore apply Bengel's Canon (I. see p. 247). Alford's remark,
however, is very sound : ' We should be introducing great harsh-
ness into the sentence, and a new and [to us moderns] strange
term into Scripture, by adopting deos: a consequence which
ought to have no weight whatever where authority is overpower-
ing, but may fairly be weighed where this is not so. The
" praestat procliviori ardua " finds in this case a legitimate limit '
(N. T., note on John i. 18). Every one indeed must feel 5eo's to
be untrue, even though for the sake of consistency he may be
forced to uphold it. Westcott and Hort set ixovoyevris 6e6s in
the text, but concede to d ixopoyevr]s vlos a place in their margin.

Those who will resort to 'ancient evidence exclusively' for
the recension of the text may well be perplexed in dealing with
this passage. The oldest manuscripts, versions, and writers are
hopelessly divided, so that we can well understand how some
critics (not very unreasonably, perhaps, ^et without a shadow
of authority worth notice) have come to suspect both 6e6s and

1 We are not likely to adopt Tischendoi-f 3 latest reading and punctuation in
Col. ii. 2, ToS 0eoS, Xpiarov,

360 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

vios to be accretions or spurious additions to fiovoyevn^. If the
principles advocated in Vol. II. Ch. X be true, the present is just
such a case as calls for the interposition of the more recent
uncial and cursive codices ; and when we find that they all,
with the single exception of Cod. 33, defend the reading 6 ixovo-
yevris vios, we feel safe in concluding that for once Codd. ^<BC
and the Peshitto do not approach the autograph of St. John so
nearly as Cod. A, the Harkleian Syriac, and Old Latin versions K

19. John iii. 13. Westcott and Hort remove from the text
to the margin the weighty and doubtless difficult, but on that
account only the more certainly genuine, words 6 Sbv ev tu
ovpavM. Tischendorf rejected them (as indeed does Professor
Milligan) in his 'Synopsis Evangelica,' 1864, but afterwards
repented of his decision. The authorities for omission are NBL
(which read ixovoyevr^s deos in ch. i. 18) T* [vi], 33 alone among
manuscripts. CDF are defective here: but the clause is con-
tained in AEGHKMSUVrAAII, and in all cursives save one,
A* and one Evangelistarium (44) omitting &v. No versions
can be cited against the clause except one manuscript of the
Bohairic : it appears in every one else, including the Latin,
the four Syriac, the Ethiopic, the Georgian, and the Armenian.
There is really no Patristic evidence to set up against it, for it
amounts to nothing that the words are not found in the Armenian
versions of Ephraem's Exposition of Tatian's Harmony (see
Vol. I. p. 59, note 3) ; that Eusebius might have cited them twice
and did not ; that Cyril of Alexandria, who alleges them once,
passed over them once ; that Origen also (in the Latin translation)
neglected them once, inasmuch as he quotes them twice, once
very expressly. Hippolytus [220] is the prime witness in their
behalf, for he draws the theological inference from the passage
(dTTOoraXels iva teC^rj aiiTov (ttI yrjs ovra elvai kol kv oipayw), wherein
he is followed in two places by Hilary and by Epiphanius.
To these add Dionysius of Alexandria [iii], Novatian [iii],
Aphraates the Persian, Didymus, Lucifer, Athanasius, Basil,

' Hence we cannot think with Prebendary Sadler (Lost Gospel, p. 48) that
/Joi'07«'7)s 9eos is veiy probably the original reading, and must even take leave to
doubt its orthodoxy. The received reading & /iovoyivijs vtSs is upheld by Dr. Ezra
Abbot in papers contributed to the American BibUotheca Sacra, Oct. 1861, and to
the Unitarian Review, June, 1875 ; it is attacked with characteristic vigour and
fullness of research by Dr. Hort in the first of his 'Two Dissertations ' (pp. 1-72)
written in 1876 as exercises for Theological degrees at Cambridge.

GOSPELS. JOHN III. I3 ; V. 3, 4. 361

besides Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and by John Damascene
(thrice), by Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, and Theodoret each
four times, — indeed, as Dean Burgon has shown ^, more than
fifty passages from thirty- eight ecclesiastical writers ; and we
then have a consensus of versions and ecclesiastical writers from
every part of the Christian world, joining Cod. A and the later
manuscripts in convicting NBL, &c., or the common sources from
which they were derived, of the deliberate suppression of one
of the most mysterious, yet one of the most glorious, glimpses
aflforded to us in Scripture of the nature of the Saviour, on the
side of His Proper Divinity.

20. John v. 3, 4. eKbe')(Ofji,evci>v TTfV Tov ibaros Kivrjo'iv. &yye\os
yap Kara Kaipbv Kari^aivev kv rrj Ko\vix.^r]dpa, koX erapacrcre rd vboop'
6 ovv irp&Tos ejUySas /iiera ttju Tapayj]v tov vbaTos, vyii]i kylvero, &)
fiTjTTore KanixsTo voa-fijxaTL. This passage is expunged by Tischen-
dorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, obelized ( = ) by
Griesbach, but retained by Scholz and Lachmann. The evidence
against it is certainly very considerable : Codd. i^BC*D, 33, 157,
314, but D, 33 contain sKbexojJ'^vodv . . . kCvtio-lv, which alone A*L,
18 omit. It may be observed that in this part of St. John
A and L are much together against i<, and against B yet more.
The words from ayyeXbs yap to voa-^ixari are noted with asterisks
or obeli (employed without much discrimination) in SA, 8, 11 ?,
14 {&yy€Kos . . . vbcop being left out), 21, 24, 32, 36, 145, 161, 166,
230, 262, 269, 299, 348, 408, 507, 512, 575, 606, and Armenian
manuscripts. The Harkleian margin marks from S,yyeXos to
vbatp with an asterisk, the remainder of the verse with obeli.
The whole passage is given, although with that extreme
variation in the reading which so often indicates grounds
for suspicion ^, in EFGHIKMUVrAII (with an asterisk through-
out), and all known cursives not enumerated above ^ : of these

' The Kevision Revised, p. 133. Also Miller's 'Textual Guide,' App. VI.

' To give but a very small part of the variations in ver. 4 : St (pro yap)
L, a 6 off, Vulg. —yip Evst. 51, Boh. + Kvp'iov {post yip) AKLA, 12, 13, 69, 607,
509, 511, 512, 570 and fifteen others: at tov eeov 152, Evst. 53, 54.— Kori xaip&v
ahffWoino (pro KaTefiaivev) A (K), 42, 507. Ethiop. — ej/ rg KoKvp.0-q6pa abff.
irapAaaeTo rd vSap CGHIMUVA*, 440, 509, 510, 512, 513, 515, 543, 570, 575,
Evst. 150, 257, many others. + in pisoinam (post e/ijSds) c, Clementine Vulg.
iyivero EL, 69, at least fifteen others.

' Either Dean Burgon or I have recently found the passage in Codd. 518, 524,
541, 560, 561, 578, 582, 594, 598, 599, 600, 602, 604, 622.

362 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

Cod. I [vi] is of the greatest weight. Cod. A contains the
whole passage, but down to klvtjo-iv secundd Tnanu ; Cod. C also
the whole, tertid manu. Of the versions, Cureton's Syriac, the
Sahidic, Schwartze's Bohairic ^, some Armenian manuscripts, /Zg
C4L.(^4^fl'^J> of the Old Latin, mn. harl."^ and two others of the Vulgate [vid.
Griesbach) are for omission ; the Roman edition of the Ethiopia
leaves out what the Harkleian margin obelizes, but the Peshitto
and Jerusalem Syriac, all Latin copies not aforenamed, Wilkins'
Bohairic, and Armenian editions are for retaining the disputed
words. Tertullian clearly recognizes them ('piscinam Beth-
saidam angelus interveniens commovebat,' de Baptismo, 5), as do
Didymus, Chrysostom, Cyril, Ambrose (twice), Theophylact, and
Euthymius. Nonnus [v] does not touch it in his metrical
paraphrase.

The first clause (e/cSex Kivrjo-iv) can hardly stand in

Dr. Scrivener's opinion, in spite of the versions which support it,
as DI are the oldest manuscript witnesses in its favour, and it
bears much of the appearance of a gloss brought in from the
margin. The succeeding verse is harder to deal with^ ; but for
the countenance of the versions and the testimony of Tertullian,
Cod. A could never resist the joint authority of i>5BCD, illus-
trated as they are by the marks of suspicion set in so many
later copies. Yet if ver. 4 be indeed but an ' insertion to complete
that implied in the narrative with reference to the popular ielief
(Alford, ad loc), it is much more in the manner of Cod. D and
the Curetonian Syriac, than of Cod. A and the Latin versions ;
and since these last two are not very often found in unison, and
together with the Peshitto, opposed to the other primary docu-
ments, it is not very rash to say that when such a conjunction
does occur, it proves that the reading was early, widely diffused,
and extensively received. Yet, after all, if the passage as it
stands in our common text can be maintained as genuine at all,
it must be, we apprehend, on the principle suggested above,
Vol. I. Chap. I. § 11, p. 18. The chief difficulty, of course, consists

' Of Lightfoot's list of manuscripts, the passage is omitted in Codd. 2, 4,
5, 7, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26. It stands in the text of 3, 9, 14, in the
margin only of 1, 20.

' ' Both elements, the clause kKSexo/ifviov rtjv tSiv idarajv (sic) xivriffiv, and the
scholium or explanatory note respecting the angel, are unquestionably very
ancient : but no good Greek document contains both, while each of them
separately is condemned by decisive evidence' (Hort, Introd., p. 301).

GOSPELS. JOHN V. 3, 4 ; VII. 8. 363

in the fact that so many copies are still without the addition, if
assumed to be made by the Evangelist himself : nor will this
supposition very well account for the wide variations subsisting
between the manuscripts which do contain the supplement, both
here and in chh. vii. 53 — viii. 11 ^.

21. John vii. 8. This passage has provoked the 'bark' of
Porphyry the philosopher, by common consent the most acute
and formidable adversary our faith encountered in ancient times
[d. 304]. ' Iturum se negavit,' as Jerome represents Porphyry's
objection, * at fecit quod prius negaverat : latrat Porphyrins,
inconstantiae et mutationis accusat.' Yet in the common text,
which Lachmann, Westcott and Hort, apparently with Professor
Milligan, join in approving, eyoi owttco ava/SaCvco ds t7)v toprriv
ravTr)v, there is no vestige of levity of purpose on the Lord's part,
but rather a gentle intimation that what He would not do then.
He would do hereafter. It is plain therefore that Porphyry the
foe, and Jerome the defender of the faith, both found in their
copies ovK, not ovirw, and this is the reading of Tischendorf and
Tregelles : Hort and Westcott set it in their margin. Thus too
Epiphanius and Chrysostom in the fourth century, Cyril in the
fifth, each of them feeling the difficulty of the passage, and
meeting it in his own way. For ovk we have the support of i<
(AC hiant) DKMH, 17 secundd manu, 389 : add 507, 570, being
Scrivener's pw (two excellent cursives, often found together in
vouching for good readings), 558, Evst. 234, the Latin abc eff^ I
secwndd manu, Cureton's Syriac, the Bohairic, Armenian, and
Ethiopic versions^, a minority of the whole doubtless, yet
a goodly band, gathered from east and west alike. In this case
no hesitation would have been felt in adopting a reading, not
only the harder in itself, but the only one that will explain the
history of the passage, had not the palpable and wilful emenda-
tion ovTro) been upheld by B : ignoscitur isti, even when it resorts
to a subterfuge which in any other manuscript would be put

' Dean Burgon has left a long vindication of the whole passage amongst
his papers not yet published.

' Add from Dr. Malan (ubi supra, p. 97), the Georgian, Slavonic (text, not
margin), Anglo-Saxon, and Persic. His Arabic (that of Erpenius) agrees
vrith the Peshitto Syriac. The Armenian version of Ephraem's Tatian also
reads nm.

364 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

aside with scorn. The change, however, from the end of the
third century downwards, was very generally and widely
diffused. Besides B and its faithful allies LT, oiJirco is read in
EFGHSUVXrAA, in all cursives not cited above, in fgq, in
some Vulgate codices (but in none of the best), the Sahidic,
Gothic, and three other Syriac versions, the Harkleian also in
its Greek margin. Basil is alleged for the same reading, doubt-
less not expressly, like the Fathers named above. It is seldom
that we can trace so clearly the date and origin of an important
corruption which could not be accidental, and it is well to know
that no extant authorities, however venerable, are quite exempt
from the influence of dishonest zeal.

22. John vii. 53 — viii. 11. On no other grounds than those
just intimated when discussing ch. v. 3, 4 can this celebrated
and important paragraph, the pericope adulterae as it is called,
be regarded as a portion of St. John's Gospel. It is absent from
too many excellent copies not to have been wanting in some of
the very earliest ; while the arguments in its favour, internal
even more than external, are so powerful, that we can scarcely
be brought to think it an unauthorized appendage to the writings
of one, who in another of his inspired books deprecated so
solemnly the adding to or taking away from the blessed testi-
mony he was commissioned to bear (Apoc. xxii. 18, 19). If
ch. XX. 30, 31 show signs of having been the original end of this
Gospel, and ch. xxi be a later supplement by the Apostle's own
hand, which I think with Dean Alford is evidently the case,
why should not St. John have inserted in this second edition
both the amplification in ch. v. 3, 4, and this most edifying and
eminently Christian narrative? The appended chapter (xxi)
would thus be added at once to all copies of the Gospels then in
circulation, though a portion of them might well overlook the
minuter change in ch. v. 3, 4, or, from obvious though mistaken
motives, might hesitate to receive for general use or public
reading the history of the woman taken in adultery.

It must be in this way, if at all, that we can assign to the
Evangelist chh. vii. 53 — viii. 11 ; on all intelligent principles of
mere criticism the passage must needs be abandoned : and such
is the conclusion arrived at by all the critical editors. It is
entirely omitted (ch. viii. 12 following continuously to ch. vii. 52)

GOSPELS. PERICOPE ADULTERAE. 365

in the uncial Codd. ^AiBC^T (all very old authorities) LX^ A,
but LA leave a void space (like B's in Mark xvi. 9-20) too small
to contain the verses (though any space would suffice to intimate
the consciousness of some omission), before which A* began to
write ch. viii. 13 after ch. vii. 53.

Add to these, as omitting the paragraph, the cursives 3, 12,
21, 22, 33, 36, 44, 49, 63 (teste Abbott), 72, 87, 95, 96, 97, 106,
108, 123, 131, 134, 139, 143, 149, 157, 168, 169, 181, 186, 194,
195, 210, 213, 228, 249, 250, 253, 255, 261, 269, 314, 331, 388,
393, 401, 416, 453, 473 (with an explanatory note), 486, 510,
550, 559, 561, 582 (in ver. 12 irdXat for irakLv): it is absent in
the first, added by a second hand in 9, 15, 105, 179, 232, 284,
353, 509, 625: while ch. viii. 3-11 is wanting in 77, 243, 324
(sixty-two cursive copies). The passage is noted by an asterisk
or obelus or other mark in Codd. MS, 4, 8, 14, 18, 24, 34 (with an
explanatory note), 35, 83, 109, 125, 141, 148 (secundd nianu),
156, 161, 166, 167, 178, 179, 189, 196, 198, 201, 203, 219, 226,
230, 231 (secundd manu), 241, 246, 271, 274, 277, 284?, 285,
338, 348, 360, 361, 363, 376, 391 (secundd manu), 394, 407, 408,
413 (a row of commas), 422, 436, 518 (secundd inanu), 534, 542,
549, 568, 575, 600. There are thus noted vers. 2-11 in E, 606 :
vers. 3-11 in n (Mat ver. 6), 128, 137, 147 : vers. 4-11 'in 212 (with
unique rubrical directions) and 355 : with explanatory scholia
appended in 164, 215, 262^ (sixty-one cursives). Speaking
generally, copies which contain a commentary omit the paragraph,
but Codd. 59-66, 503, 526, 536 are exceptions to this practice.
Scholz, who has taken unusual pains in the examination of this

* Codd. AC are defective in this place, but by measuring the space we have
shown (p. 99, note 2) that A does not contain the twelve verses, and the same
method applies to C. The reckoning, as M^Clellan remarks (N. T., p. 723), ' does
not preclude the possibility of small gaps having existed in A and C to mark the
place of the Section, as in L and A.'

' Yet Burgon's caution should be attended to. ' It is to mislead — rather it is
to misrepresent the facts of the case — to say (with the critics) that Codex X
leaves out the "pericope de adultera." This Codex is nothing else but u. com-
mentary on the Gospel, as the Gospel used to te read in public. Of necessity, therefore,
it leaves out those parts of the Gospel which are observed not to have been
publicly read ' (^Guardian, Sept. 10, 1873).

^ The kindred copies Codd. A, 215 (20 has an asterisk only against the
place), 262, &c., have the following scholium at ch. vii. 53 : tA ui0i\iaii.iva
■ev riatv dj/Tiypdif>oii 01/ Ketrai, ovSe 'ATTo\[_\']ivapiw' ev 5e toT^ dpxf^tois SKa KiL[yTai'
fivrjiMtve-dovaiv T^s ireptKOTiTjs ravTTjs Kal ol diroaroKoi, iv ah e^iOevTO Siara^effiv els
ol/coSop-fiv T^j exxKi]aias. The reference is to the Apostolic Constitutions (ii. 24. 4),
as Tischendorf perceives.

#^i

366 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

question, enumerates 290 cursives, others since his time forty-one
more, which contain the paragraph with no trace of suspicion,
as do the uncials DF {partly defective) GHKUr (with a hiatus
after (rrTjo-az^res avT-qv ver. 3) : to which add Cod. 736 {see
addenda) and the recovered Cod. 64, for which Mill on ver. 3
cited Cod. 63 in error. Cod. 145 has it only secundd inianu,
with a note that from ch. viii. 3 roSro rb K^^iXaiov kv iroAAois
avTiypd(j)ois ov Keirat. The obelized Cod. 422 at the same place
has in the margin by a more recent hand h tt^uiv avTiypi.^r]s
o^rm. Codd. 1, 19, 20, 129, 135, 207 1, 215, 301, 347, 478,
604, 629, Evst. 86 contain the whole pericope at the end of
the Gospel. Of these, Cod. 1 in a scholium pleads its absence
0)9 kv Tots -nXe^iocnv avTiypa<j>ois, and from the commentaries of
Chi-ysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Theodore of Mopsuestia ;
while 135, 301 confess they found it ev apxa^ois dvrtypa^oty:
Codd. 20, 215, 559 are obelized at the end of the section, and
have a scholium which runs in the text to. i)fiiki<Tp.ha, K€ip,€va be
els TO TeAoy, Ik T&vbe 58e r-qv aKokovdCav eyei, and on the back of
the last leaf of both copies to virep^aTov to oincrdev Qr]Tovp,evov.
In Codd. 37, 102, 105, ch. viii. 3-11 alone is put at the end of
the Gospel, which is all that 259 supplies, though its omission in
the text begins at ch. vii. 53. Cod. 237, on the contrary, omits
only from ch. viii. 3, but at the end inserts the whole passage
from ch. vii. 53 : in Cod. 478, ch. vii. 53 — viii. 2 stands priind
Tnanu with an asterisk, the rest later. Cod. 225 sets chh. vii.
53 — viii. 11 after ch. vii. 36 ; in Cod. 115, ch. viii. 12 is inserted
between ch. vii. 52 and 53, and repeated again in its proper
place. Finally, Codd. 13, 69, 124, 346 (being Abbott's group),
^ and 556 give the whole passage at the end of Luke xxi, the
aji order being apparently suggested from comparing Luke xxi. 37
with John viii. 1 ; and &pdpi^e Luke xxi. 38 with opdpov John
viii. 2^- In the Lectionaries, as we have had occasion to state
before (Vol. I. p. 81, note), this section was never read as a part

1 Yet so that the first hand of Cod. 207 recognizes it in the text, setting
in the margin t& Si \ofiiiv i'/jTci «is ri t^A.os toB 0i0\iov (Burgon, Guardian,
Oct. 1, 1873).

' A learned friend suggests that, supposing the true place for this supple-
mental history to be yet in doubt, there would be this reason for the narrative
to be set after Luke xxi, that a reader of the Synoptic Gospels would be aware
of no other occasion when the Lord had to lodge outside the city : whereas with
St. John's narrative before him, he would see that this was probably the usual
lot of a late comer at the Feast of Tabernacles (oh. vii. 14). Mr. J. Eendel Harris

GOSPELS. PERICOPE ADULTERAE. 367

of the lesson for Pentecost (John vii. 37 — viii. 12), but was
reseryed for the festivals of such saints as Theodora Sept. 18,
or Pelagia Oct. 8 (see Vol. I. p. 87, notes 2 and 3), as also in
Codd. 547, 604, and in many Service-books, whose Menology
was not very full (e. g. 150, 189, 257, 259), it would thus be
omitted altogether. Accordingly, in that remarkable Lectionary,
the Jerusalem Syriac, the lesson for Pentecost ends at ch. viii. 2,
the other verses (3-11) being assigned to St. Euphemia's day
(Sept. 16).

Of the other versions, the paragraph is entirely omitted in
the true Peshitto (being however inserted in printed books with
the circumstances before stated under that version), in Cureton's
Syriac, and in the Harkleian ; though it appears in the Codex
Barsalibaei, from which White appended it to the end of
St. John : a Syriac note in this copy states that it does not
belong to the Philoxenian, but was translated in A. D. 622 by
Maras, Bishop of Amida. Maras, however, lived about A. D. 520,
and a fragment of a very different version of the section, bearing
his name, is cited by Assemani (Biblioth. Orient, ii. 53) from
the writings of Barsalibi himself (Cod. Clem.-Vat. Syr. 16).
Ridley's text bears much resemblance to that of de Dieu,
as does a fourth version of ch. vii. 53 — viii. 11 found by Adler
(N. T. Version. Syr., p. 57) in a Paris codex, with the marginal
annotation that this ' avvra^Ls ' is not in all the copies, but was
interpreted into Syriac by the Abbot Mar Paulus. Of the
other versions it is not found in the Sahidic, or in some of
Wilkins' and all Schwartze's Bohairic copies^, in the Gothic,
Zohrab's Armenian from six ancient codices (but five very
recent ones and Uscan's edition contain it), or in afl (text) q of
the Old Latin. In b the whole text from ch. vii. 44 to viii. 12
has been wilfully erased, but the passage is found in c e (we have
given them at large, pp. 362-3), ff^ kj I (margin), the Vulgate €'~
(even am. fuld. for. san.}, Ethiopic, Slavonic, Anglo-Saxon, ^
Persic (but in a Vatican codex placed in ch. x), and Arabic.

thinks that the true place for the pericope is between oh. v and ch. vi, as for
other reasons which we cannot depend upon, so from our illustrating the
mention of the Mosaic Law in ch. viii. 5 by ch. v. 45, 46.

' Yet on the whole this paragraph is found in more of Bp. Lightfoot's copies
than would have been anticipated : viz. in the text of 3, 8, 14, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24,
in the margin of 1, and on a later leaf of 20. It is wanting in 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 19,
21, 25, 26.

368 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

Of the Fathers, Euthymius [xii], the first among the Greeks
to mention the paragraph in its proper place, declares that irapa
TOts aKpi^iaiv avnypdipoLS rj ov\ evp-qrai fj (u/SeXtorai" bid (jyaCvovTat,
■napiyypa-nTa Koi irpoa-driiir]. The Apostolic Constitutions [iii or iv]
had plainly alluded to it, and Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. iii. 39 Jin.)
had described from Papias, and as contained in the Gospel of
the Hebrews, the story of a woman em iroWais a/xaprtats
biap\r)deCa-qs eirl tov KvpCov, but did not at all regard it as Scripture.
Codd. KM too are the earliest which raise the number of tCtXoi
or larger /cet^dXaia in St. John from 18 to 19, by interpolating
Kecj). i irepl Trjs /xot^aAtSos, which soon found admittance into the
mass of copies : e. g. Evan. 482.

Among the Latins, as being in their old version, the narrative
was more generally received for St. John's. Jerome testifies that
it was found in his time ' in multis et Graecis et Latinis
codicibus ; ' Ambrose cites it, and Augustine (de adult, conjugiis,
lib. ii. 0. 7) complains that ' nonnuUi modicae fidei, vel potius
inimici verae fidei,' removed it from their codices, ' credo
metuentes peccandi impunitatem dari mulieribus suis ^.'

When to all these sources of doubt, and to so many hostile
authorities, is added the fact that in no portion of the N. T. do
the variations of manuscripts (of D beyond all the rest) and
of other documents bear any sort of proportion, whether in
number or extent, to those in these twelve verses (of which
statement full evidence may be seen in any collection of various
readings)^, we cannot help admitting that if this section be
indeed the composition of St. John, it has been transmitted to
us under circumstances widely different from those connected
with any other genuine passage of Scripture whatever^.

Second Series. Acts.
23. Acts viii. 37. Et'Tre 8e 6 *iXt7ri7os, Et ■jriorewis ef oXrj?

^ ' Similiter Nicon ejectam esse vult narrationera ab Armenis, 0\a0fpciv
(hai Toh TTohKois rrjv roiavTuiv &,Kp6aaiv dicentibus.' Tisehendorf ad loc. Nicon
lived in or about the tenth century, but Theophylact in the eleventh does not
use the paragraph.

^ Notice especially the reading of 48, 64, 604, 736 {prima manu) in ver. 8 eypcupev
els TTjv y^v kvbs kKaffrov avrwv rdy dfiapTias.

' We are not surprised in this instance at Dr. Hort's verdict (Introd. p. 299):
'No interpolation is more clearly Western, though it is not Western of the
earliest type.' Dean Burgon has left amongst his papers an elaborate vindication
of this passage, from which however the Editor cannot quote.

ACTS VIII. 37. 369

Tijs KaphCas, e^eoTTi,!). 'AnoKpidels 8^ elire, Tlt(TT€vm tov vlbv rov ©eoS
ehai TOV *lrj<Tovv Xpicrrov ^. We cannot safely question the
spuriousness of this verse, which all the critical editors condemn,
and which seems to have been received from the margin, where
the formula nioreva) k.tA. had been placed, extracted from some
Church Ordinal : yet this is just the portion cited by Irenaeus,
both in Greek ^ and Latin ; so early had the words found a place
in the sacred text. It is contained in no manuscripts except E
(D, which might perhaps be expected to favour it, being here
defective), 4 {secundd manu), 13, 15, 18 ?, 27, 29, 36, 60, 69, 97,
100, 105, 106, lOr, 163, 227, Apost. 5, 13 once; and in the
margin,. 14, 25 &c., in Cod. 186 alone out of Scrivener's thirteen:
manuscripts of good character, but quite inadequate to prove
the authenticity of the verse, even though they did not differ
considerably in the actual readings they exhibit, which is
always in itself a ground of reasonable suspicion (see pp. 361,
368, 374) ^. Here again, as in Matt, xxvii. 35, Gutbier and
Schaaf interpolated in their Peshitto texts the passage as
translated into Syriac and placed within brackets by Elias
Hutter: the Harkleian also exhibits it, but marked with an
asterisk. It is found in the Old Latin g and m although
in an abridged form, in the Vulgate (both printed and demid.
tol., but not in am. primS, manu, fuld. &c.), and in the satel-
lites of the Vulgate, the Armenian, Polyglott Arabic, and
Slavonic. Bede, however, who used Cod. E, knew Latin
copies in which the verse was wanting : yet it was known to
Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, Pacian, &c. among the Latins, to
(Ecumenius and Theophylact (twice quoted) among the Greeks.
Erasmus seems to have inserted the verse by a comparison of the
later hand of Cod. 4 with the Vulgate * ; it is not in the Com-

' The form rbv 'Ir/aovv XpiaT6y, objected to by Michaelis, is vindicated by
Matt. i. 18, the reading of which cannot rightly be impugned. See above.
Compare also ver. 12.

* djs avr6s & evvovxos netffOels Kal irapavrixa d^taiv 0aTmff$7Jvatf €\eye, UiaTeiioj tov
vlbv ToB Oeov iTvai 'Irjffovv XptarSv, Harvey, vol. ii. p. 62.

' Such are air^ with or without i ^iXi-mros in E, 100, 105, 163, 186, 221, the
Harkleian with an asterisk : aov added after xapStas in E, 100, 105, 163, 186,
tol., the Harkleian with an asterisk, the Armenian, Cyprian ; but ex toto corde
the margin of am. and the Clementine Vulgate : t6v omitted before 'Iijaovv in
186, 221 and others.

* 'Non reperi in graeeo codice, quanquam arbitror omissum librariorum in-
curia. Nam et haec in quodam codice graeeo asscripta reperi, sed in margine.'
Erasmus, N. T., 1516.

VOL. n, B b

370 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

plufcensian edition. This passage aflfords us a curious instance of
an addition well received in the Western Church from the
second century downwards [see p. 164), and afterwards making
some way among the later Greek codices and writers.

24. Acts xi. 20. We are here in a manner forced by the sense
to adopt, with Griesbach, Bp. Chr. Wordsworth, Lachmann,
Tischendorf, and Tregelles, the reading "EXXTjj^aj in the room of
'EXXi7i>i(rray of the Eeceived text, retained by Westcott and
Hort^- Immediately after the call of the Gentiles to the
privileges of the Gospel was acknowledged and acquiesced in at
Jerusalem (ver. 18), we read that some of those who had been
scattered abroad years ago went about preaching the word to
Jews only (ver. 19). In this there was nothing new : there had
been "RXk-qvicnaC ' Greek- speaking Jews ' among the brethren
long since (ch. vi. 1), and to say that they were again preached
to was not at all strange: the marvel is contained in ver. 20.
' But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene,
which, when they came to Antioch, spake unto the Greeks also '
(/cat TTpbs Tovs "EXX-qvas : Kal intimating the additional information),
and that with such success in converting these heathen Greeks,
that Gentile Christians first obtained at Antioch the name, no
longer of Nazarenes (ch. xxiv. 5), but of Christians (ver. 26).
The meaning being thus evident, we look to the authorities
which uphold it, and these are few, confessedly insufficient if the
sense left us any choice, but recommended to us, as the matter
stands, by their intrinsic excellence : they are AD* (the latter
without Kai, which is, however, otherwise abundantly attested
to) Cod. 184, one of the best of the cursives, but not its kindred
221, the Peshitto Syriac, the Armenian, perhaps the Ethiopic.
The Vulgate, Bohairic, Sahidic, and Harkleian Syriac draw no
distinction between "EXXrives and "EXXjjviorai: the Peshitto
unquestionably does, since it renders 'Greek disciples ' in ch. vi. 1,
'those Jews who knew Greek' (an excellent definition) in
ch. ix. 29, but ' Greeks ' here. Eusebius clearly reads "EXXrjvas,

' They plead, besides the confessed preponderance of manuscript evidence
for 'EWr/viaTis, that ' A familiar word standing in an obvious antithesis was not
likely to be exchanged for a word so rare that it is no longer extant, except in
a totally different sense, anywhere but in the Acts and two or three late Greek
interpretations of the Acts ; more especially when the change introduced an
apparent difficulty ' (Hort, Notes, p. 98). JuHicet lector.

ACTS XI. 20; XIII. 18. 371

as does Chrysostom in his exposition (not in his text), all the
more surely because he is perplexed how to expound it: his
words are echoed by CEcumenius and in both commentaries of
Theophylact, only that they substitute "EX\?ji»toTay for "EWrjvai
in repeating his words bia ro iirj elbivai eppaia-Ti, "EXkrjvas
eKAkovv : they both have 'EAATjvtords in the text. Thus for once
B is associated with E, with a later hand of D (of the seventh or
eighth century), with the later uncials HLP and all cursives
except one, in maintaining a variation demonstrably false. C is
defective here, and the first hand of t<, which presents us with
the wonderful eiayyeXiortis, makes so far in favour of B ; but t^°
corrects that error into "EWr^vas.

25. Acts xiii. 18. We have here as nice a balance between
conflicting readings (diflfering only by a single letter) as we find
anywhere in the N. T. The case is stated in the margin to our
Authorized version of the Bible, more minutely than is its wont,
though modern printers have unwarrantably left out the reference
to a Mace. vii. 27 in copies not containing the Apocrypha ^. For
iTpo'ito<f>6pricrev 'suffered he their manners' of Tregelles, of
Westcott and Hort, are cited J^B, the very ancient second hand
of C, T> (in the Greek), HLP, 61 with almost all other cursives
and the catenas : for the alternative erpo^o0o'p7jo-ev ' fed them like
a nurse ' of Lachmann and Tischendorf (Tregelles placing it in
his margin) we find ACE, 13, 24* (not 24** with Tischendorf),
68, 78* (margin), 93, 100, 105, 142, d against its own Greek and
the Vulgate jointly. Versions are in such a case of special
weight, but unfortunately they too are somewhat divided.
For w we find the Vulgate and a Greek note set in the
Harkleian margin, for <j) the Peshitto and Harkleian Syriac,
both Egyptian, the Armenian, and both Ethiopic, with
Erpenius' Arabic: the Arabic of the Polyglott gives both
renderings. Thus the majority of the versions incline one way,
the oldest and most numerous manuscripts the other. It is
useless to cite Greek writers, except they show from the context
which word they favour. The form with (f> was doubtless read
in the Apostolic Constitutions, and twice in Cyril of Alexandria,
and that word is supported as well by 3 Mace. vii. 27, as by the
other text cited in the margin of the Authorized English Bible,

' Cambridge Paragraph Bible, Introduction, pp. Ivi and Ixxxii.

B b a

372 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

Deut. i. 31, to which the Apostle's reference is so manifest, that
■we cannot but regard' it as neai-ly decisive which expression he
used. Although in Deuteronomy also Greek copies vary a little
between ir and ^, yet both A and B^ read the latter, indeed the
Hebrew (Nto3),^ace Hortii, would admit of nothing else. For
IT Origen is express, both in his Greek commentary (not his text)
and Latin version, but then he seems to employ it even in Deut.
i, 31, where it cannot be correct. Chrysostom and Theophylact
give no certain sound. Wetstein seasonably illustrates hpoTr.
from Eom. ix. 22. Internal evidence certainly points to
fTpo(j)o<j)6pr](T€v, which on the whole may be deemed preferable.
The Apostle is anxious to please his Jewish hearers by
enumerating the mercies their nation had received from the
Divine favour. ' God had chosen them, exalted them in Egypt, ,
brought them out with a high hand, fed them in the wilderness,
and given them the land of Promise. It would hardly have
suited his purpose to have interposed, by way of parenthesis, in
the midst of his detail of benefits received, the unwelcome
suggestion of their obstinate ingratitude and of God's long
forbearance.

26. Acts xiii. 32. Here for rols rtuvois amStv fjiuv Lachmann,
Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort read tols tskvols
rjn&v. As well from the fact that it is much the harder form
(see Canon I), as from the state of the external evidence,
they could not act otherwise. In defence of rjix&v we have
NABC*D, but apparently no cursives, the Vulgate version, Hilary,
Ambrose, Bede (with the variant vij.&v in tol. and elsewhere),
and both Ethiopic. We cannot resist the five great uncials
when for once they are in harmony. The Received text
is supported by the third hand of C, by EHLP, by all the
cursives, by the two Syriac and Armenian versions, the catenae,
Chrysostom and Theophylact. The Sahidic omits 57^11', the
Bohairic both pronouns. To take up fnxiv without avr&v, the
reading of a solitary cursive of the eleventh century, Cod. 76,
would approach the limits of mere conjecture, yet every one can
see how well it would account for all other variations. ' The
text, which alone has any adequate authority, and of which all

' But with the same lack of accuracy which so often deforms this great copy :
HIS (Tpo(po<poj>rjatv <re «s o 6s aov us €( tis rpoiroipopTjafi prima manu (Yercelloue).

ACTS XIII. i8; 32; 33; XV. 34. 373

or nearly all the readings are manifest corrections, gives only an
improbable sense. It can hardly be doubted that fiix&v is a
primitive corruption of f/iuv, tovs irarepas and rots tskvois being
alike absolute. The suggestion is due to Bornemann, who cites
X. 41 in illustration ' (Hort, Notes, p. 95). Optimh

27. Acts xiii. 33. The variation ttp^jtm for hevripa of the
Received text commended itself to Griesbach, Lachmann,
Tischendorf, and Tregelles, merely from its apparent difficulty ;
yet there is no manuscript authority for it except D, g, and
' quidam codices ' known to Bede. Origen and Hilary indeed
mention the variation, but they explain at the same time the
cause, as do Eusebius and others. TertuUian and Cyprian also
quote the words as from the first Psalm, and the arrangement
of the two Psalms sometimes together, sometimes separate, is as
old as Justin Martyr's time. Under these circumstances Westcott
and Hort are surely fully justified in abiding by the common
reading, against which there is no other evidence than what has
been named above.

28. Acts xv. 34. ilo^e Se rw StXa e-Tnixitvai, avrov. This
verse is omitted by t^ABEGHP, and of the cursives by 31, 61 of
the .first rank, by 24, 91, 184, 185, 188, 189, 221, and full fifty
others. Erasmus inserted it in his editions from the margin of
Cod. 4. It is wanting in the Peshitto (only that Tremellius
and Gutbier between them thrust their own version into the
text), in the Bohairic, Polyglott Arabic, Slavonic, the best
manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate [am. fuld. demid., &c.), and
by Chrysostom and Theophylact in at least one copy. In C it
runs ebo^ev be too o-tXa eTnp,€Lvai avrovs, which is followed by many
cursives : some of which, however, have avrov, two avTois, 42, 57,
69, 182, 186, 187, 219 avroei, with the Complutensian Polyglott.
The common text is found in the Sahidic, Tremellius' Syriac,
in the Harkleian with an asterisk, also in Erpenius' Arabic,
Theophylact, and CEcumenius. In D we read ebo^e be tm a-eiXea
eviiMeivai [vpos secundd 7nanu\ avrovi (sustinere eos d) /jlovos be
lovbas eitopevOr], which Lachmann cites in Latin as extant in this
form only in one Vienna Codex (for which see his N. T., Proleg.
vol. i. p. xxix) : thus too tol., the Armenian (not that of Venice),
and the printed Slavonic, The common Vulgate, Cassiodorus

374 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

and Hutter's Syriac add 'Jerusalem/ so that the Clementine
Latin stands thus : ' Visum est autem Silae ibi remanere ;
Judas autem solus abiit Jerusalem.' The Ethiopic is rendered
'Et perseveravit Paulus manens/ to which Piatt's copies
add 'ibi.'

No doubt this verse is an unauthorized addition, self-con-
detoned indeed by its numerous variations {see p. 361). One can
almost trace its growth, and in the shape presented by the
Eeceived text it must have been (as Mill conjectures) a marginal
gloss, designed to explain how (notwithstanding the terms of
ver. 33) Silas was at hand in ver. 40, conveniently for St. Paul
to choose him as a companion in travel.

29. Acts xvi. 7. After TTvevna at the end of this verse
Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort most
rightly add 'Itjo-oC. The evidence in its favour is overwhelming,
and it is not easy to conjecture how it ever fell out of the text :
compare Rom. viii. 9. It is wanting only in HLP and the mass
of the cursives, even in Codd. 184, 221 : Codd. 182, 219 omit
the whole clause from koL ovk etaaev, nor does 'Ijjo-oC appear in the
Sahidic version, or in three Armenian manuscripts, nor is it
recognized by Chrysostom or Theophylact. 'Ijjo-oC is read by
«ABC**DE, 13, 15, 31, 33, 36, 61 {priTnd manu), 73, Apost.40:
but Cod. 105 and a few others have tov 'Irjo-ov. The versions are
all but unanimous for the addition, being all the known Latin
except demid., the Bohairic, both Syriac, both Ethiopic, and three
manuscripts of the Armenian : two more of its codices with one
edition read xP'o'i'ou, six (with Epiphanius) rb &ywv in its room,
while demid. has Kvpiov with the first hand of C. The catenae
exhibit 'Irjo-ov in spite of Chrysostom, as do Didymus, Cyril
of Alexandria, and the false Athanasius both in Greek and
Latin.

30. Acts xx. 28. rr]v eKKXrja-iav tov deov, rjv irepieTroiTjcraTo 8ia
TOV ibCov alixaros. This reading of the Received text, though
different from that of the majority of copies, is pretty sure to be
correct : it has been adopted by Alford (who once rejected 6eov
for Kvpiov), and by Westcott and Hort : Tregelles places it in his
margin, though, with Lachmann and Tischendorf, he has Kvpioii
in the text. ©Y is upheld by NB (the latter now for certain),

ACTS XVI. 7; XX. 28. 375

4, 22, 23, 25, 37, 46, 65, 66* (1), 68, 84, 89, 154, 162, Apost. 12,
and ex silentio, on which one can lay but little stress, by Codd.
7, 12, 16, 39, 56, 64, together with 184 and 186, codices not now
in England. 'Dei' is read by all known manuscripts and
editions of the Vulgate except the Complutensian, which was
probably altered to suit the parallel Greek. From the Vulgate
this form was taken by Erasmus, and after him by Tyndale's and
later English versions. Lee's edition of the Peshitto has deov,
from three codices (the Travancore, a Vatican Lectionary of Adler
[xi], and one at the Bodleian), and so has the Harkleian text.
Toil KvpCov (differing but by one letter, see our Plates v. No. 13 ;
X. No. 25) is in AC*DE (and therefore in d, e), 13, 15, 18, 36
(text), 40, 69, 73, 81, 95* 130, 156, 163, 180, 182, 219, Apost. 58,
some catenae, the Harkleian margin, the Sahidic, Bohairic,
Armenian, and possibly also the Roman Ethiopic, though
there the same word is said to represept both dv and kv. Piatt's
Ethiopic, all editions of the Peshitto except Lee's, and Ei"penius'
Arabic, have tov xptfroiJ, with Origen once, Theodoret twice, and
four copies of Athanasius : the Old Latin m reads ' Jesu Christi.
Other variations, too weakly supported to be worth further
notice, are tov Kvpiov 6eov 3, 95**, the Polyglott Arabic ; tov deov
Kttt Kvpiov 47 ; and the Georgian tov Kvpiov tov Oeov. The great
mass of later manuscripts give tov KvpCov koI 6eov, viz. C (tertid
Tnanu), HLP, 24, 31, 111, 183, 185, 187, 188, 189, 221, 224, and
more than one hundred other cursives, including probably every
one not particularized above. This is the reading of the Complu-
tensian editors, both in the Greek and Latin, and of some modern
critics who would fain take a safe and middle course; but is coun-
tenanced by the reading of no version except the Slavonic, and
by no ecclesiastical writer before Theophylact. It is plainly
but a device for reconciling the two principal readings ; yet from
the non-repetition of the article and from the general turn of
the sentence it asserts the Divinity of the Saviour almost as
unequivocally as deov could do alone. Our choice evidently lies
between Kvpiov and Oeov, which are pretty equally supported by
manuscripts and versions : Patristic testimony, however, may
shghtly incline to the latter. Foremost comes that bold ex-
pression of Ignatius [a. D. 107] ava^u-nvprja-avTes iv atjxaTL deov
(ad Ephes. i), which the old Latin version renders ' Christi Dei,
and the later interpolator softens into xP'-''"''°^ '• ^o again (ad

376 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

Roman, vi), roC -ndOovs rov deov jxov. It may be true that
Ignatius ' does not adopt it [the first passage] as a quotation '
(Davidson ad loc), yet nothing short of Scriptural authority
could have given such early vogue to a term so startling as oX^a
0eov, which is also employed by TertuUian (ad uxorem, ii. 3) and
Clement of Alexandria (Quis dives, 34). The elder Basil,
Epiphanius (twice), Cyril of Alexandria (twice), Ibas (in the
Greek only), Ambrose, Caelestine, Fulgentius, Primasius, Cassio-
dorus, &c., not to mention writers so recent as CEcumenius and
Theophylact, expressly support the same word. Manuscripts of
Athanasius vary between deov, Kvpiov, and xP'o-i"ov, but his evidence
would be regarded as hostile to the Received text, inasmuch as
he states (as alleged by Wetstein) that ovbaixov 8e alixa 6eov Ka9'
fjixas TTapabebcoKaiTiv al ypa((>aO 'Apeiav&v to, Toiavra To\p.rjy.aTa (contra
Apollinar.): only that for Ka6' tjjms (which even Tischendorf cites
in his seventh edition), the correct reading is St'xa crapnos or bia
(TapKos, a citation fatal to any such inference. In Chrysostdm
too the readings fluctuate, and some (e.g. Tregelles) have
questioned whether the Homilies on the Acts, wherein he has
6eov, are of his composition. In behalf of Kvp[ov are cited the
Latin version of Irenaeus, Lucifer of Cagliari, Augustine, Jerome,
Ammonius, Eusebius, Didymus, Chrysostom (whence Theophy-
lact), possibly Theodoret, and the Apostolic Constitutions, while
the exact expression sanguis Dei was censured by Origen and
others. It has been urged, however, and not without some show
of reason (Nolan, Integrity of Greek Vulgate, p. 517, note 135),
that the course of Irenaeus' argument proves that deov was used
in his lost Greek text. After all, internal evidence — subjective
feeling if it must be so called — will decide the critic's choice
where authorities are so much divided as here. It seems
reasonable to say that the whole mass of witnesses for rov Kvplov
Kol 6eov vouches for the existence of 6eov in the earliest codices,
the commonplace KvpCov being the rather received from other
quarters, as it tends to point more distinctly to the Divine
Person indicated in the passage. If this view be accepted, the
preponderance in favour of Beov, undoubtedly the harder form, JlS
very marked, and when the consideration suggested above from
Dean Alford is added, there will remain little room for hesitation.
It has been pleaded on both sides of the question, and appears
little relevant to the case of either, that St. Paul employs in ten

ACTS XX, 28; XXVII. 16. 37.7

places the expression eKKXrjala tov deov, but never once iKKXricria

TOV KVploV or TOV yjpKTTOV.

It is right to mention that, in the place of tov Mov atixaTos,
the more emphatic form tov atixaTos tov IhCov ought to be adopted
from NA {see Plate v. No. 13) BODE, 31, 182, 184 (Sanderson),
with some twenty other cursives, Didymus, &c. ; while tov Iblov
atixaTos is only in HLP, the majority of cursives, Athanasins,
Chrysostom, &c. We must, however, protest strongly against
the interpretation put upon roS aXixaTos tov Iblov by Mr. Darby
in his ' New Translation,' ' the blood of his own,' ' le sang de son
propre [fils],' as being no less unwarrantable, though more
reverential, than that of Wakefield, which Bp. Middleton
(Doctrine of the Greek Article, pp. 293-5) condemns so justly.
Nor can we do less than repudiate unreservedly Dr. Hort's
expedient (Notes, p. 99), who would render ' through the blood
that was His own,' i. e. as being His Son's. Indeed he has so
little faith in it that he is constrained to say ' It is however true
that this general sense, if indicated, is not sufficiently expressed
in the text as it stands.'

31. Acts xxvii. 16. KaCSa, the form which Erasmus noted
as that of Cod. B, is adopted by Lachmann, Tregelles, Westcott
and Hort, in preference to Kkavba of Tischendorf and the
Eeceived text. Putting Kura of the Peshitto, Keda of Pell
Piatt's Ethiopic, out of the question, we note that N", the Vulgate
and Latins (Jerome has Gavden, Cassiodorus Gaudem), followed
by the Roman edition of the Ethiopic, alone omit the A. In the
first century Pomponius Mela wrote Cauda, the other Pliny
Gaudos, and Suidas speaks of Caudo as an island near Crete : it
is now called Gazo, and is not to be confounded with the island
of Gaulus near Malta, now bearing the same name. The A is
inserted by Ptolemy, the celebrated geographer of the second
century, and by later writers : it is found in N*AHLP, in all
known cursives (with a like variation in the termination as
in the other form), the Bohairic, the later Syriac both in its
text and in Greek letters in its margin, the Armenian, and
Erpenius', or the only trustworthy form of the Arabic.
Chrysostom and Bede have the same reading, which must surely
be retained unless the union of Cod. B with the Latins is to
prevail against all other evidence put together.

378 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

33. Acts xxvii. 37. In the place of StaicoVtai I^So^iTjKovra e^
"Westcott and Hort have received into their text &s e^8o/irj/coi;ra ?f,
placing the common reading in the margin. Their form is
supported by Cod. B and the Sahidic version only, and was
plainly resorted to by those who were slow to believe that
a corn ship, presumably heavily laden (vers. 6, 18), would con-
tain so many souls. There is a slight variation in the other
authorities, as is usual where numbers are concerned, from the
ancient practice of representing them by letters, whereof many
traces are yet remaining throughout Codex Sarravianus of the
Septuagint, dating from the end of the fourth century, and in our
present copies (Cod. D in Acts xiii. 18 ; 20; xix. 9) of the New
Testament : even in this place Cod. 61 has cog. Hence A reads
irivre for e$, 31 omits f^ entirely, one Bohairic copy has the
A,- tj.^li incredible number of 876 (mo?"), another 176 (po^). The Ethiopia
is reported by Tregelles to read <as Staicoo-tat e^, but that in the
Polyglott favours the common text ; Epiphanius comes nearest
to B (ms k^honr]K.ovTa), ' libere ' adds Tischendorf. For the more
specific number assigned by B m is not so well suited.

In ordinary cases the common reading would be abided by
without hesitation, upheld as it is by t<5CHLP, by all cursives,
virtually by A, 31, completely by the Latin, both Syriac, the
Armenian, and most copies of the Bohairic. It is obvious
also that the writer wishes to impress upon us the fact that out of
so large a party all were saved, and seventy-six would be a small
number indeed. Josephus was wrecked in the Adriatic with
600 on board (Josephus' Life, c. 3 : see Whiston's note) ^- It
is right, however, to point out that, on the possible supposition
that numeral letters, not words, were employed in St. Luke's
autograph, the difierence between B and the Received text
would consist of the insertion or the contrary of the letter (o :
whether in fact it be assumed that the Evangelist wrote coco?"
or coS", ' about 76 ' or ' 276".' Surely it is more likely that co was
inserted than omitted.

In ver. 39 the first hand of B, this time favoured by C, and
supported by the Bohairic, Armenian, and (in Tregelles) the

' Witness too Luoian's vrrep/ieyiBri vavv koX jre'pa toS ixerpov, fiiav rSiv an
AiyvirTov fls 'IraKiav (TiTayaiySiv (NaTig. seu Vota, o. 1) which was driven out of its
course to the Piraeus. Mr. Smith, of Jordan Hill, cannot bring its dimensions
under 1,300 tons.

ACTS XXVII. 37. ST. PAUL. ROM. V. I. 379

Ethiopic versions, has anotlier curious variation, also promoted
into the text by Westcott and Hort, eKtrSo-at for the common
k^&a-ai, which they banish into the margin. This change also
is very minute, being simply the resolution of xi into the
two consonants ipv which it stands, and the reading very
ingenious, unless indeed it be regarded as a mistake made
ex ore dictantis {see p. 10), which with Madvig as cited by
Mr. Hammond (Outlines of Textual Criticism, first edition, p. 13,
note) we regard as a slovenly plan, such as one would be loth
to impute hastily to the scribes of so noble a copy as Cod. B.
Here, however, as ever, internal evidence being equiponderant,
we must decide by the weight of documentary proof, and adopt
e^&a-ai with NAHLP, all cursives (including 61), the Latin and
Syriac versions.

Third Series. St. Paul.

83. Rom. v. 1. AtKatco^eires ovv fK ■n-tVrecos elprivqv exo//.ez'
lipbs Tov &e6v. Here, as in a Cor; iii. 3, we find the chief
uncials supporting a reading which is manifestly unsuitable
to the context, although, since it does not absolutely destroy
the sense, it does not (nor indeed does that other passage) lack
strenuous defenders. Codd. NB for exofi^ev have primd manu
4x(i)ii.iv, and though some doubt has been thrown on the primitive
reading of B, yet Mai and TregeUes (An Account of the Printed
Text, p. 156) are eyewitnesses to the fact, which is now settled :
Tischendorf in 1866 referred ex^M^^ ^o the third hand ofB,
Codd. ACDEKL, not less than thirty cursives, including 104, 244 ?
257 and the remarkable copies 17, 37, also read ex'"M^^' ^^
do defg, the Vulgate (' habeamus '), the Peshitto Syriac
(|iviS.». ^ )oo*j), Bohairic, Ethiopic (in both forms), and Arabic.
Chrysostom too supports this view, and so apparently TertuUian
('monet justificatos ex fide Christi . . . pacem adDeum habere').
The case for exoft^iv is much weaker in itself: Codd. ^^^'B'FG (in
spite of the contrary testimony of fg, their respective Latin
versions) P, perhaps the majority of the cursive manuscripts (29,
30, 47, 231, 260, 265, &c.), Didymus, Epiphanius, Cyril (once),
and the Slavonic. The later Syriac might seem to combine
both readings (U*j», ]o^l loX ^ l^i* Iocxj): White translates
' habemus,' but has no note on the passage ^- Had the scales

' Dr. Field, however, says that 'this is a mistake.' The Syriac is Ix"/""

380 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

been equally poised, no one would hesitate to prefer ^x^M^^j ^o^
the closer the context is examined the clearer it will appear that
inference not exhortation is the Apostle's purpose : hence those
who most regard ' ancient evidence ' (Tischendorf and Tregelles,
Westcott and Hort; Lachmann could not make up his mind)
have struggled long before they would admit Ixco/xei' into the
text. The ' Five Clergymen ' who in or about 1858 benefited
the English Church by revising its Authorized version of this
Epistle, even though they render ' let ws have peace with Qod'
are constrained to say, ' An overwhelming weight of authority
has necessitated a change, which at the first sight seems to
impair the logical force of the Apostle's argument. No con-
sideration, however, of this kind can be allowed to interfere
with the faithful exhibition of the true text, as far as it can
be ascertained ; and no doubt the real Word of God, thus
faithfully exhibited, will vindicate its own meaning, and need
no help from man's shortsighted preference ' (Preface, p. vii).
Every one must honour the reverential temper in which these
eminent men approached their delicate task; yet, if their
sentiments be true, where is the place for internal evidence at
all ? A more ' overwhelming weight ' of manuscript authority
upholds Kapbiais in a Cor. iii. 3 : shall we place it in the text,
' leaving the real Word of God to vindicate its own meaning ' ?
Ought we to assume that the reading found in the few most
ancient codices — not, in the case of Eom. v. 1, in the majority
of the whole collection — must of necessity be the ' real Word of
God, faithfully exhibited ' ? I see no cause to reply in the
affirmative, nor do Meyer and Dr. Field ^.

We conclude, therefore, that this is a case for the application
of the paradiplomatical canon (VII) : that the itacism t» for
0, so familiar to all collators of Greek manuscripts ^, crept into

and nothing else. For exoi^^" tliis version (and all others) would put ^^ k>-»( :
but 'when the word is in the subjunctive mood, since k«-»( is indeclinable, it
is a peculiarity of the Harkleian to prefix the corresponding mood of Joo,
here )oop' (Otium Norvicense, iii. p. 93). For this strange phrase he cites
Eom. i. 13 ; 2 Cor. v. 12, and to such an authority I have but dare manus.

' It is simply impossible to translate with Jos. Agar Beet, in the [Wesleyan]
London Quarterly, April, 1878, either 'Let us then, justified by faith, have
peace with God,' or ' Let us then be justified by faith and have peace with
God.' Acts XV. 36 will help him little : the other places he cites (Matt. ii. IS, &c.)
not at all.

' Dr. Vaughan (Epistle to the Romans) has Ix^A"" iii liis text, and compares

ST. PAUL. ROM. V. i; I COR. XI. 24. 381

some very early copy, from which it was propagated among our
most venerable codices, even those from which the earliest
versions were made: — that this is one out of a small number
of well-ascertained cases in which the united testimonies
of the best authorities conspire in giving a worse reading
than that preserved by later and, on the whole, quite inferior
copies.

34. I CoE. xi. 24. I am as unwilling as Mr. C. Forster
could have been to strike out from the Keoeived text ' a word
which (if genuine) the Lord God had spoken ! ' (A new Plea
for the Three Heavenly Witnesses, Preface, p. xvii), but I cannot
censure Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, or Westcott and Hort,
or Dean Blakesley for deciding on the state of the evidence, as
now generally taken, that it is not genuine. Yet it is with great
satisfaction that I find Bp. Chr. Wordsworth able to retain
K\<iiJ,evov, and to save the solemn clause to vTtkp v/xfiy from being
'bald and impressive without the participle.' Mr. Forster's
argument in behalf of KXcofi-evov, that it refers to ch. x. 16, rbv
apTov ov ic\&ij.ev, has a double edge, and might be employed to
indicate the source from which the word crept in here. It is
more to the purpose to urge with Bp. Wordsworth that early
scribes were ofiended by the apparent inconsistency of the term
with John xix. 36, and because there is nothing like it in the
narratives of the three earlier Evangelists. If we decide to
retain Kkdfxivov, it must be in opposition to the four chief
manuscripts NABC, though NO insert it by the third hand of
each. Cod. D, like its namesake of the Gospels and Acts, is

Hob. xii. 28, Ix'"/"'' X*^/""! 'where there is the same variety of reading.' B is
lost in this last place, but exo/'^'', which is quite inadmissible, is found in
Codd. XKP, the Latin of D, 31 and many other cursives, the printed Vulgate, and
its best manuscripts. In Rom. xiv. 19 even Dr. Hort is driven by the versions
and the sense to adopt in his text SidiHoi/iev of CD and the mass of cursives, rather
than Siiixo/iev with KABFGLP, Sec. The like confusion between o and oi appears
in the text we shall examine next but one (i Cor. xiii. 3) and in the subjoined
note (p. 384). See also ipopiaoiiev and (popkaaiiuv, i Cor. xv. 49. "We must
confess, however, that in some of our oldest extant MSS. the interchange of
and a is but rare. In Cod. Sarravianus it is found in but twenty-three places
out of 1224 in which itacisms occur, 830 of them being the mutation of
«( and I. On the other hand, stands for 01 and trice versa very frequently
in that papyrus fragment of the Psalms in the British Museum which
Tischendorf, perhaps a little hastily, judged to be older than any existing
writing on vellum.

382 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

somewhat inclined to paraphrases, and has QpynTotievov ^ by the
first hand, nXdiMfvov by the second. Only two cursives here side
with the great uncials (17, and the valuable second hand of 67),
as do Zohrab's Armenian, Cyril of Alexandria and Fulgentius in
the fifth century, and Theodoret's report of Athanasius. The
word K\u>ii.€vov. is found in EFGKLP, all other cursives, the Latin
versions of DE {quod frangitur), with Ambrosiaster : G and the
interlinear Latin of F, which, as has been already shown under
that MS., is taken from G, prefer quod frangetur, with both
Sj'riac, the Gothic, and the Armenian of XJscan. The Latin
Vulgate has tradetur (but traditur in harl.^, even in the parallel
column of F and against its Greek, and so Cyprian : the Bohairic
renders traditur ; but the Sahidic and Ethiopic datur, after the
bib6iJ.evov of Zacagni's Euthalius, derived from Luke xxii. 19.
Theodoret himself knew of both forms. The main strength of
K\(ifjievov rests on Patristic evidence. Mr. Forster has added to
our previous store the ' conclusive testimony ' of Basil (Forster,
p. xxvi) and of Athanasius himself {ibid. p. xvii), which is better
than Theodoret^s report at second hand ; and thus too Chrysostom
in three places, one manuscript of Euthalius, John Damascene,
the Patriarch Germanus (a. d. 715, ibid. p. xix), CEcumenius and
Theophylact. Mr. Forster is perfectly justified also in pressing
the evidence of the Primitive Liturgies, in all of which kXcoixsvov
occurs in the most sacred words of Institution {ibid. pp. xx, xxi).
Whatsoever change these services have received in the course of
ages, they have probably been little altered since the fourth
century, and very well established must the word have then
been to have found a place in them all. On the whole, there-
fore, we submit this important text as a proof that the united
readings of NABC are sometimes at variance, not only with the
more modern codices united, but with the text of the oldest
versions and most illustrious Fathers. We confess, however,
that in ver. 29 ava^iais (compare ver. 27) and tov kv look too
much like glosses to be maintained confidently against the
evidence of {^*ABC* 17, (67**) and some manuscripts of the
Ethiopic.

35. I CoE. xiii. 3. eav irapabQ rb criSjixa fiov tva KavdTjcrcojLiae,

' Dr. Hort (Notes, p. 116) observes that iiaBpitna is specially used in the
Septuagint (Lev. ii. 6 ; Isa. Iviii. 7) for the breaking of bread.

ST. PAUL. T COR. XI. 24; XIII. 3. 383

'though I give my body to be burned.' Here we find the
undoubtedly false reading KouxT^o-copiai in the three chief codices
NAB and in 17, adopted by Drs. Westcott and Hort^, and it is
said to have been favoured by Lachmann in 1831, by Tregelles in
1873 (A. W. Tyler, Bibl. Sacra, 1873, p. 502). Jerome testifies
that in his time ' apud Graecos ipsos ipsa exemplaria esse diversa,'
and preferred Kavxifo-ajjuat (though all copies of the Latin have ut
ardeani or ut ardeat), which is said to be countenanced by the
Koman Ethiopic : the case of the Bohairic is stated by Bp. Lightfoot
(Chap. IV) ^- Tischendorf cites Ephraem (ii. 112) for Kavxijo-o/xat.
This variation, which involves the change of but one letter, is
worth notice, as showing that the best uncial MSS. are not always
to be depended upon, and sometimes are blemished with errors '
(Wordsworth, N. T., ad loc). As a parallel use, Theodotion's
version of Dan. iii. 8 (jTapebcaKav to, craixara avr&v els irvp) is very
pertinent : and for the punishment of burning alive, as practised
in those times, consult (if it be thought needful) Joseph., Antiq.
xvii. 6, 4 (Hort). Kavxw<^l^(^i- t^^Y have obtained the more
credit, inasmuch as each of the other principal readings, namely
Tischendorf s Kave^aop.ai (DEFGL, 44, 47, 71, 80, 104, 113**;
253**, 254, 255, 257, 260, 265, with nine of Matthaei's, and
some others : xa^Tjcro/iai 244) and Kou^^o-co^ai (CK, 29, 37, and
many others, Chrysostom, Theodoret, &c.) of Lachmann and
Tregelles, are anomalous, the former in respect to mood, the
latter to tense. The important cursive 73 has KavBricrtTai with
some Latin copies : Codd. 1, 108* Basil (perhaps Cyprian) adopt
KavOfi : the Syriac («oli?), and I suppose the Arabic, will suit
either of these last. Evidence seems to preponderate on the side
of Kav6rjiT0fi.ai, but in the case of these itacisms manuscripts are
very fallacious we know. Such a subjunctive future as Kavdr;-
<T(ciJ,ai, however, I should have been disposed to question, had it
not passed muster with much better scholars than I am : but to
illustrate it, as Tregelles does (An Account of the Printed Text,

• Few things are too hard for Dr. Hort, yet one is almost surprised to be told
that ' The text gives an excellent sense, for, as ver. 2 refers to a faith towards
God which is unaccompanied by love, so ver. 8 refers to acts which seem by
their very nature to be acts of love to men, but are really done in ostentation.
First the dissolving of the goods in almsgiving is mentioned, then, as a climax,
the yielding up of the very body ; both alike being done for the sake of glorying,
and unaccompanied by love ' (Notes, p. 117).

'Tyler compares shoushou also in 2 Cor. vii. 5, 9 ; Ps. v. 11 (12).

384 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

p. 117, note), from Iva tiitrg Apoc. viii. 3, is to accomplisli little,
since Idxfu is the reading of l^AC, 1 (although Erasmus haS
Uttj with BP, 6, 7, 91, 98, and the Complutensian), 13, 28, 29,
30, 37, 40, 48, 68, 87, 94, 95, 96 (Soxn 8, 26, 27 : 8w 14), together
with the best copies of Andreas, and is justly approved by
Lachmann and Tischendorf, nay even by Tregelles himself in
his second revision (1872). It seems most likely that in both
places 'Iva, the particle of design, is followed by the indicative
future, as (with Meyer and Bp. EUicott) I think to be clearly
the case in Eph. vi. 3. In John xvii. 3 even Tregelles adopts
tva yivaa-KOVcnv ^-

36. I CoE. XV. 51. We have now come to a passage which
has perplexed Biblical students from St. Jerome's time, and has
exercised the keen judgement of Bp. Pearson in his Exposition of
the seventh article of the Apostles' Creed. There is but little
doubt that the Received text, as rendered in our English versions,

^ Neither Winer nor his careful translator. Professor Moulton, seems disposed
to yield to Laehmann's authority in this matter. ' In the better class of
writers,' says Winer, ' such forms are probably due to the transcribers (Lobeck
on Phrynichus, p. 721), but in later authors, especially the Scholiasts (as on
Thucydides iii. 11 and 54), they cannot be set aside. In the N. T., however,
there is very little in favour of these conjunctives ' (Moulton's ' Winer,' p. 89
and note 4, p. 361 and note 1). Yet Tregelles thinks ' there would be no
difficulty about the case, had not one been made by grammatical critics' (An
Account of the Printed Text, p. 211, note f ). But in his own example, John xvii.
2, Iva . . . Siicrp is read by N^ACGKHSX, 83, 511, 546, and (so far as I can find)
by no other manuscript whatever. On the other hand hiiau (read by Westcott
and Hort ; see Introd., Notes, p. 172) is supported by BEHUYFAAn (N has 8<Mirai,
D ex'/i I' ^"Oj ^iid (^s it would seem) by every other codex extant : SoiCtj came
into the common text from the second edition of Erasmus. Out of the twenty-five
collated by myself for this chapter, Saian is found in twenty-four (now including
Wake 12 or Cod. 492 and Cod. 622), and the following others have been expressly
cited for it : ], 10, 11, 15, 22, 42, 45, 48, 53, 54, 55, 60, 61 (Dobbin), 63, 65, 66,
106, 118, 124, 127, 181, 142, 145, 157, 250, 262, Evst. 3, 22, 24, 86, and at least
fifty others, indeed one might say all that have been collated with any degree of
minuteness : so too the Complutensian and first edition of Erasmus. The
constant confusion of « and i; at the period when the uncials were written
abundantly accounts for the reading of the few, though AC are among them.
In later times such itacisms were far more rare in careful transcription, and the
mediaeval copyists knew their native language too well to fall into the habit in
this passage. In Pet. iii. I 'iva xepSridriaovTai is read by all the uncials (NABCKLP),
nearly all cursives, and the Complutensian edition, in the place of -aaivTai of
Erasmus and the Eeceived text ; just as we have iva ytvijaxofiev in KAB*LP, 98,
99, 101, 180, 184, 188, 190 in i John v. 20 . The case for &pKe(rerjiT6iieBa i Tim. vi. 8
is but a shade less feeble.

ST. PAUL. I COR. XIII. 3; XV. 5I. 385

is the true reading: (a) Uavres fiev oi Koifi-qd-qcroixeda, Trarres 8^
aWayqa-oixeda. Some of the leading authorities omit ixiv, a few
put he or yap in its placej but, with this trifling exception, the
clause stands thus in B, the third hand of D, and consequently in
EKLP, 37, 47, 265, and indeed nearly all the cursives, as in
some manuscripts known to Jerome, and has the support of
Theodore of Heraclea and ApoUinarius : and so the two Syriac,
the Bohairic (the Sahidic not being extant), the Gothic, and one
edition of \he Ethiopic version. For the same form may be
cited Ephraem the Syrian, Caesarius, Gregory of Nyssa, and
Chrysostom (often) in the fourth century ; Theodoret and
Euthalius in the fifth century ; Andreas of Caesarea in the sixth ;
John Damascene in the eighth. A modification of this main and
true reading (b) Oii Travres K0i\xi)a-6iieQa, iiavTis hi aWayrjaofxeda is
supported only by Origen and some copies known to Jerome :
it is only a clearer way of bringing out the foregoing sense. The
next form also hardly enters into competition, (c) UAvres [fj^ev]
ava(TT7}(r6iJ,eda, ov vavTes he dXXayTjo-o/xefla : it is supported by the
first hand of D, by the Vulgate (whose manuscripts vary between
resurgimus and resurgemus, while 7n omits the negative), by
Tertullian and Hilary. Even the Latin versions of EF maintain
it against their own Greek, while Jerome and Augustine note it
as a point wherein the Latin copies diverge from the Greek. A
fourth variation is due to Cod. A alone, (d) 01 Travres p-ev koi/xtj-
a-oixeda, ot iravTes he aXKayqaojxeQa, the second 01 being altered by
the first hand, and ov by the same or a very early hand super-
added after 01 ■ndvTes he : but this is only a correction of tran-
scriptional error. The real variation consists in the transfer of the
negative from the first clause to the second, (e) Ylavres [y-ev]
KOinr}6r]cr6iJ.e6a, ov Travres he aWayrja^ofj^eOa of b5C(F)G, 17, and
apparently of A also by intention. This last is discussed by
Jerome, who alleges in its favour Didymus and Acacius of
Caesarea ; it appears also in Origen, CyrH of Alexandria, and in
copies known to Pelagius and Maximus, but their testimony
fluctuates. In its favour are quoted the Armenian and one form
of the Ethiopic, but all the Latin prefer (c) except the interlinear
version of G, and the rendering set above the Vulgate text of F,
which is assimilated to the latter. The Complutensian margin
in a special note chronicles one other change, Uavres jxev ovv
Koinrjerja-oixeOa, a\k' ov irdvTes aKKayr\(T6ixeda, but this is bye-work.
VOL. II. C C

386 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

' The objection made in ancient times to the Received reading
was, that the wicked would not be changed, namely, glorified ;
but St. Paul is here speaking only of the resurrection of the
Just' (Bp. Chr. Wordsworth): compare i Thess. iv. 14-17.
Thus Cod. B and the cursives for once unite to convict of false-
hood a change which men were pleased to devise in order to
evade a difficulty of their own making.

37. Eph. v. 14. It is instructive to observe how a reading,
pretty widely diffused in the fourth century, though not obtain-
ing much acceptance even at that period, has almost entirely
disappeared from extant codices. In the place of iinipava-ei trot
6 xP'o'T'os the first hand of D, followed of course by E (Sanger-
manensis) and the Latin versions of both, exhibits an interesting
variant finyj/ava-eis tov xpi-<^'''ov, continges Ghnstv/m. Jerome had
heard of it in the form fTn\j/ava-ei, id est continget te Christus, but
refused to vouch for it, as do Chrysostom and Theodoret, though
they treat it with somewhat more consideration. The Latin inter-
preter of Origen (against his own Greek twice, and the Latin
once), with Victorinus and the writer cited as Ambrosiaster,
adopt it as genuine. Augustine (on Psalm iii) has et continget
te once, but once elsewhere the common reading. Theodore of
Mopsuestia, in the Latin version of his Commentary on St. Paul's
Epistles, recently edited by Dr. Swete from two manuscripts,
one at Amiens (Cod. 68) brought from Corbey [x], a second from
Cuza, now Harleian. 3063 [ix], after translating inluminahit
tibi Christus, goes on to say ' alii continget te Christus legerunt ;
habet autem nullam sequentiam ' (Swete, vol. i. p. 180). The
variation of D* is surely too curious to be lost sight of altogether,
' The two imperatives [eyetpe and avaara] doubtless suggested
that the following future would be in the second person, the
required o- stood next after eTrt<^awet, easily read as iTn\jrav(Tfi,
and then the rest would follow accordingly.' Hort, Notes, p. 125.
Such are the harmless recreations of a critical genius.

38. Phil. ii. 1. d us Koivcovia itvevnaTos, ei nva cnrX(iyx'"''
For TLva, to the critic's great perplexity, ris is found in NABCD
EFGKLP, that is, in all the uncials extant at this place. As
regards the cursives nearly the same must be said. Of the seven-
teen collated by Scrivener, eleven read ns (29, 80, 253, 254, 255,

ST. PAUL. EPH. V. 14 ; PHIL. II. I. ; COL. II. 2. 387

257, 258, 260, 265, 266, 277), and six n (31, 104, 221, 244, 253,

256). Mill enumerates sixteen others that give ns, one (40) that

has Ti : Griesbach reckons forty-five in favour of tis, eight (including

Cod. 4) for n, to which Schok adds a few more (18, 46, 72, 74).

Thus am. fuld. tol. of the Vulgate render si quid viscera, for the

more usual si qua viscera. One cursive (109) and a manuscript

of Theodoret have re. Basil, Chrysostom (in manuscript) and

others read tjs, as do the Complutensian, the Aldine (1518)^

Erasmus' first four, and E.. Stephen's first two editions. In fact

it may he stated that no manuscript whatever has been cited for

Tiva, which is not therefore likely to be found in many. Theodore

of Mopsuestia alone, in his Latin version published by Dr. Swete

(vol. i. p. 214), has si qua et viscera against the Vulgate. In

spite of what was said above with regard to far weaker cases, it

is impossible to blame editors for putting tis into the text here

before airkayxva : to have acted otherwise (as Tischendorf fairly

observes) would have been ' grammatici quwrn editoris partes

agere.' Yet we may believe the reading to be as false as it is

intolerable, and to afford us another proof of the early and (as

the cursives show) the well-nigh universal corruption of our

copies in some minute particulars. Of course Clement and later

Fathers give nva, indeed it is surprising that any cite otherwise ;

but, in the absence 0/ definite docwmentary proof , this can hardly

be regarded as genuine. Probably St. Paul wrote n (the reading

of about nineteen cursives), which would readily be corrupted

into TIS, by reason of the o- following (TICriAArXNA), and the

TLs which had just preceded. See also Moulton's 'Winer,' p. 661,

and note 3.

39. Col. ii. 2. tov liva-TripCov Tov @eov Koi iTarpbs Koi tov
Xpio-Tov, ' of the mystery of God the Father, and of Christ.' The
reading of B (approved by Lachmann, by Tischendorf in his
eighth edition, by Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, Bp. Chr. Words-
worth, and Bp. EUicott), tov ixva-TrjpCov tov deov xp'toC (' ita cod.
nihil interponens inter 6eov et xptcroC,' Mai, 2nd ed.^), has ' every

* Tischendorf, however, boldly interposes a comma between the words {see
p. 359, note), and is followed by Westcott and Hort and by Bp. Lightfoot, whose
note on the passage (Coloss. p. 318) is very elaborate. This mode of punctuation
would set xp'ff™" in apposition to itvarripiov, in support of which construction
ch. i. 27 (o) ; i Tim. iii. 16 {os) are alleged. This, however, is not the sense
favoured by Hilary (in agnitionem sacraminti dei Christi, and again Dms Christua

c c a

388 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

appearance of being the original reading, and that from which
the many perplexing variations have arisen ' (Canon II). At
present it stands in great need of confirmation, since Hilary (de
Trin. ix) alone supports it (but koL xpio'toC Cyril), though the
Scriptural character of the expression is upheld by the language
of ch. i. 27 just preceding, and by the Eeceived text in i Tim. iii.
16. Some, who feel a difficulty in understanding how xp'""™"
was removed from the text, if it ever had a place there, conceive
that the verse should end with deov, all additions, including
Xpio-Tov the simplest, being accretions to the genuine passage.
These alleged accretions are tov 6eov eort xpi-o"''os, manifestly
an expansion of xP'-°"''°^ ^^^ derived from ch. i. 27; tov deov
iruTpos TOV xP'fi'ot' : tov deov Kal TraTpos kol tov xpiaTov, the final
form of the Eeceived text. Now, of these four readings, tov 6eov
the shortest, and, according to Griesbach, Scholz, Tischendorf in
his seventh edition, Alford, and Dr. Green, the true one, is found
only in the late uncial P, and in a few, though confessedly good,
cursives : 37, 71, 80*, 116 (kw. deov 23), and the important second
hand of 67 ; witnesses too few and feeble, unless we consent to
put our third Canon of internal evidence to a rather violent use.
Of the longer readings, o ioTLv xptcrro's is favoured by D (though
obelized by the second hand, which thus would read only tov
deov), d e (whose parallel Greek speaks difierently), by Augustine
and Vigilius of Thapsus, but apparently by no cursives. The
form best vouched for appears to be that of N*AC, 4, of the
Sahidic according to one of the readings of Griesbach, and of an
Arabic codex of Tischendorf, tov deov iraTpbi tov (N* omits tov)
XpioToC. To these words 'ihu' is simply added by/(FG, g' are
unfortunately lost here) and by other manuscripts of the Vulgate
(am. fuld., &c.), though the Clementine edition has ' Dei patris
et Christi Jesu,' the Complutensian in the Latin ' dei et patris
et C. J.' With the Clementine Vulgate agree the Bohairic, and
(omitting itjctoC) the Peshitto Syriac, Arabic, 47, 73, Chrysostom ;
while 41, 115, 213, 221, 253* [tov d. koI -n. tov x.),so far strengthen
the case of t^AC. The Received text is found in (apparently)
the great mass of cursives, in D {tertid nnanu), EKL, the Hark-
leian Syriac (but the kuI after Trarpo's marked with one of Harkel's
asterisks, Theodoret, John Damascene and others. The minor

sacramentum est), and would almost call for the article before xp^<^tov. In
meaning it would be equivalent to D*, &c., kany xy.

ST. PAUL. COL. n. 2; I THESS. IL 7. 389

variations, roS Oeov ev XP'"''"'? of Clement and Ambrosiaster, rod
6fov Tov ev xP'<r'"¥ of I'^j uphold D*, as may the Ethiopic (' domini
quod de Christo ') : to the reading of Cod. 17 Zohrab's or the
Venice Armenian (a. d. 1789) simply adds ' Jesu.' We also find
' dei Christi Jesu patris et domini ' in tol., ' dei patris et domini
nostri Christi ' in demid., ' dei patris in Christo Jesu ' in Uscan's
Armenian ; but these deserve not attention. Theodore of
Mopsuestia (Swete, vol. i. p. 283), has mysterii Dei Patris et
Chi'isti, which need not imply the omission of /cai before irarpos.
On reviewing the whole mass of conflicting evidence, we may
unhesitatingly reject the shortest form tov Oeov, some of whose
maintainers do not usually found their text on cursive manu-
scripts almost exclusively. We would gladly adopt tov deov
XpioTov, so powerfully do internal considerations plead in its
favour, were it but a little better supported : the important doc-
trine which it declares, Scriptural and Catholic as that is, will
naturally make us only the more cautious in receiving it unre-
servedly. Yet the more we think over this reading, the more it
grows upon us, as the source from which all the rest are derived.
At present, perhaps, tov 6fov Trarpos tov xpi<'"'"oC may be looked
upon as the most strongly attested, but in the presence of so
many opposing probabilities, a very small weight might suffice
to turn the critical scale.

40. I Thess. ii. 7. We have here a various reading, con-
sisting of the prefix of a single letter, which seems to introduce
into a simple verse what is little short of an absurdity. Instead
of iJTnoi of the Received text, of Tischendorf and Tregelles, we
find z'^TTtot adopted by Lachmann as a consequence of his own
stringent rules, and by Westcott and Hort of their own free will,
unless indeed it be said that they also are working in chains of
their own forging. How St. Paul can compare himself to a babe
in one clause of the verse and to its nurse in the other would be
quite unintelligible if Origen, who read irqTnoi, bad not instructed
us that the nurse is playing at baby for the babe's amusement
(fyiviTO vrjTilos /cat irapaTrA.^(nos Tpocjxa OaXirovarj to eavTrjs watStov Koi
\aX.ov<Tri Xoyovs <as itaihiov hia to naiUov, iii. 662). It needs but the
exercise of common sense to brush away such a fancy as this,
and the state of the evidence will show us how the best authori-
ties are sometimes hopelessly in the wrong; for z/7jwioi is the

390 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

form favoured by H*BC*D*rG, 5, 23, 26, 31*, 37, 39**, 74, 87,
109**, 114, 115, 137, 219* 252, and is easily accounted for by the
accidental reduplication of the letter after N in HMeNHniOI
(see p. 10). The Vulgate and the Latin versions accompanying
DEFG (e testifying against its own Greek) have parvuli, and
so the Eohairic, Ethiopic, Clement of Alexandria (■qinos o^v 6
vffnios), Ambrosiaster, Jerome, and Augustine very expressly.
On the other hand r,i!ioi is vouched for by «**AC**D**EKLP,
17, 47, 61, 260, and by all cursives not named above, by both
Syriac versions, by the Sahidic and by its follower the Bashmuric,
by the Armenian, by Clement and Origen elsewhere (but their
inconsistency means nothing but carelessness), Basil, Chrysostom,
Theodore of Mopsuestia ^, Theodoret, Euthalius, (Ecumenius, John
Damascene and the catenae. Theophylact knew of and expounds
both readings. It is almost pathetic to mark Dr. Hort's brave
struggle to maintain a cause which in this instance is simply
hopeless. ' The second v might be inserted or omitted with equal
facility ; but the change from the bold image to the tame and
facile adjective is characteristic of the difference between St. Paul
and the Syrian revisers (cf. i Cor. iii. 1, 2 ; ix. 20, &c.). It is
not of harshness that St. Paul here declares himself innocent, but
of flattery and the rhetorical arts by which gain or repute is
procured, his adversaries having doubtless put this malicious
interpretation upon his language among the Thessalonians '
(Notes, p. 128). For his alleged Syrian revision, see above,
p. 287.

41. I Tim. iii. 16. ©eos ecjiavepcidri kv crapd. This text has
proved the crux criticorum. The Vatican has now failed us,
but all manuscripts (D tertid manu, KLP, 300 cursives) read
©eo's with the common text, except N*A*?C*?rG, 17, 73,
which have oy, D* which (after the Latin versions) has o : the
Leicester codex, 37, gives 6 6s (see facsimile No. 40, 1. 1), as if to
combine two of the variations ^. In the abridged form of
writing usual in all manuscripts, even the oldest, the difference
between OC and ©C consists only in the presence or absence of

' In Dr. Swete's edition, vol. ii. p. 11, Theodore expounds thus in the old
Latin version : sed facti sumus guieti in medio vestro, hoc est, ' omni mediocritate
et humilitate sumus abusi, nolentes graves aliquibus videri.'

'' A like combination ia seen in Cod. 87 in i Tim. vi. 19 t^s aiWiou ovtws

ST. PAUL. I THESS. II. 7 ; I TIM. III. l6. 39I

two horizontal strokes ; hence it is rather to be regretted than
wondered at that the true reading of each of the uncial authori-
ties for the former is more or less open to question. Eespecting
Cod. N we have the statement of Tischendorf, a most consummate
judge in such matters : ' corrector aliquia, qui omnium ultimus
textuvi attigit, saeculi fcrl duodecimi, [pro oy primae man'ds]
reposuit Oeos, sed hoc tarn cauU ut antiquissimam scripturam
intactam relinqueret' (Notitia Cod. Sinait. p. 20), which is
unequivocal enough : see facsimile No. 13 in Scrivener's ' Colla-
tion of Cod. Sin.,' and Introd., p. xxv : also Plate iv, facsimile
No. lie of this volume, wherein the twelfth century Be above
the line, the new accent over OC, and the triple points to denote
insertion, are very conspicuous. Nor is there any real doubt
respecting the kindred codices FG. From the photographed
title-page of the published 'Cod. Augiensis' (F) 1. 9, and
Matthaei's facsimile of G (N. T., vol. i. p. 4) ^ it will be seen that
whUe there is not the least trace of the horizontal line within
the circle of omicron, the line above the circle in both (OC) is not
horizontal, but rises a little towards the right : such a line not
unfrequently in F, oftener in G, is used (as here) to indicate the
rough breathing : it sometimes stands even for the lenis (e. g. Cbiov
I Cor. vi. 18 ; vii. 4 ; 37 ; lo-o-a Phil. ii. 6). Those who never
saw Cod. C must depend on Tischendprfs Excursus (Cod.
Ephraemi, pp. 39-42) and his facsimile, imitated in our Plate x.
No. 24. His decision is that the primitive reading was OC, but
he was the first to discern a cross line within (facsimile, 1. 3,
eighth letter) ; which, however, from the colour (' subnigra ') he
judges to belong to the second or third hand, rising upwards
(a tendency rather exaggerated than otherwise in our Plate) ;
while the coarse line above, and the musical notes (denoting
a word of two syllables) below, are plainly of the third hand.
This verdict, especially delivered by such a man, we know not
how to gainsay, and merely point to the fact that the cross line
in 0, the ninth letter further on, which is cevtsiinly primd manu,
also ascends towards the right. Cod. A, however, I have
examined at least twenty times within as many years, and yet
am not quite able to assent to the conclusion of Mr. Cowper
when he says ' we hope that no one will think it possible,

' Dean Burgon has just presented me with the photographed page in Cod. G,
respecting whose evidence there can be no remaining doubt.

392 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

either with or without a lens, to ascertain the truth of the matter
by any inspection of the Codex' (Cod. Alex., Introd. p. xviii).
On the contrary, seeing (as every one must see for himself) with
my own eyes, I have always felt convinced with Berriman and
the earlier collators that Cod. A read eC, and, so far as I am
shaken in my conviction at all, it is less by the adverse opinion
even of Bp. EUicott S than by the more recently discovered fact
that OC (which is adopted by Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf,
Davidson, Tregelles, Alford, Ellicott, Wordsworth, Hort and
Westcott), was read in i^ as early as the fourth century.

The secondary witnesses, versions, and certain of the Fathers,
also powerfully incline this way, and they deserve peculiar
attention in a case like the present. The Peshitto (?) and
Harkleian (text and oo» in margin) Syriac have a relative
(whether os or 3) ; so have the Armenian, the Eoman Ethiopic,
and Erpenius' Arabic. The Gothic supports os ; the Sahidic,
Bohairic, and Piatt's Ethiopic favour os or 6 : all Latin versions

^ The tme reading of the Codex Alexandrinus in i Tim. iii. 16 has long beett
an interesting puzzle with Biblical students. The manuscript, and especially
the leaf containing this verse (fol. 145), now very thin and falling into holes,
must have been in a widely different condition from the present when it first
came to England. At that period Young, Huish, and the rest who collated or
referred to it, believed that ©C was written by the first hand. Mill (N. T. ad loc.)
declares that he had first supposed the primitive reading to be OC, seeing clearly
that the line over the letters had not been entirely made, but only thickened, by
a later hand, probably the same that traced the coarse, rude, recent, horizontal
diameter now running through the circle. On looking more closely, however,
he detected ' ductus quosdam et vestigia satis certa . . . praesertim ad partem
sinistram, qua peripheriam literae pertingit,' evidently belonging to an earlier
diameter, which the thicker and later one had almost defaced. This old line
was aftei'wards seen by John Berriman and four other persons with him
(Gloucester Ridley, Gibson, Hewett, and Pilkington) by means of a glass in the
bright sunshine, when he was preparing his Lady Meyer's Lecture for 1737-8
(Critical Dissertation on i Tim. iii. 16, p. 156). Wetstein admitted the existence
of such a transverse line, but referred it to the tongue or sagitta of € on the
reverse of the leaf, an explanation rejected by Woide, but admitted by Tregelles,
who states in opposition to Woide that ' Part of the € on the other side of the
leaf does intersect the 0, as we have seen again and again, and which others with
us have seen also ' (Home, iv. p. 156). This last assertion may be received as
quite true, and yet not relevant to the point at issue. In an Excursus appended
to I Timothy in his edition of ' The Pastoral Epistles ' (p. 100, 1856), Bp. Ellicott
declares, as the result of ' minute personal inspection,' that the original reading
was ' indisputably ' OC. But the fact is, that the page is much too far gone to
admit of any present judgement which would weigh against past judgements,
as any one who examines the passage can see for himself. Woide could see the
line in 1765, but not in 1785.

ST. PAUL. I TIM. III. i6, 393

(even fg whose Greek is OC) read 'quod,' while 6e6s appears
only in the Slavonic (which usually resembles KL and the later
copies) and the Polyglott Arabic. Of ecclesiastical writers the
best witness for the Received text is Ignatius, ©eoC av&panxivuii
^avepovjxevov ('Ephes.' 19), both in the Greek and Old Latin,
although the Syriac abbreviator seems to have tov vlov : the later
interpolator expanded the clause thus: Oeov as avOpdirov (f)aivo-
nivov, KOL avOpa-nov a>s Bemi evepyovvTos. Hippolytus (Adv. Not. 17:
fl. 220) makes a ' free reference ' to it in the words OSros TrpoeXdcbv
fls Koa-pLov, Beds ev a-coixari e(j)avep(&dri, and elsewhere with d before
vpoeXddv. The testimony of Dionysius of Alexandria (265) can
no longer be upheld (Tregelles, Home, iv. p. 339), that of
Chrysostom to the same effect is by some deemed precarious, since
his manuscripts fluctuate, and Cramer's catena on i Tim. p. 31 is
adverse \ The evidence borne for Beos by Didymus (de Trin.)
and Gregory Nyssen ^ is beyond all doubt ; that of later writers,
Theodoret, John Damascene, Theophylact, (Ecumenius (as might
be looked for) is clear and express. The chief Latins, Hilary,
Jerome, Augustine, &c., exhibit either qui or quod: Cyril of
Alexandria (for so we must conclude both from manuscripts
and his context) ^^ Epiphanius (twice), Theodore of Mopsuestia
(in Latin) *, and others of less weight, or whose language is less

^ Yet how can it be precarious in the face of such testimony as the following
(Quarterly Beview, Oct. 1881, p. 363) ? To Sk $tbv orra avBpairov BeKijaai yeviaffat
«ai avaax^oBat jcaTaffijvai ToaovTov . . . toSt6 tart rb l/tirX^f fois fifiov. 'O 8^ Kal
TlavXos Bavfid^aiv tKeye' Kal ofwKoyovfiivajs jitya tari rb r^s evae^eias nvariipiov' ttoTov
fieya ; 6e6s i^vip6j6ri iv ffapfci' Kal xdKiv dWaxov' ov y&p dyyf\aiv kiriXayL^dverai 6
9t6s (Chrysostom, i. 497). It is necessary to study the context well before we
can understand the strength or weakness of Patristic evidence.

' Twenty-three times in all, as Ward (see p. 394, note) observes, adding that
' nothing can be more express and unquestionable than his reading.' The
Quarterly Bemewer speaks very well (ubi supra), 'A single quotation is better
than many references. Among a multitude of proofs that Christ is God, Gre-
gory says : TtfwBic^ Se Siappridrfv ^oa on 6 Beds itpavcpiiBrj iv ffaptci, IbiKotiiBrj iv wyciJ-
imn ' (ii. 693).

^ Bentleii Critica Sacra, p. 67, ' Sx<iAia Photli MSS. (Bib. Pub. Cant.) ad loc.
6 iv dyiois KvpiWos iv t& ifi K€(pa\a'uj> toi/ axoytav (prjaiv, Ss i<pavepa>Br) iv aapKi,'
Photius also quoted Gregory Thaumaturgus (or ApoUinarius) for fltos.

* Dr. Swete, in his masterly edition of the Latin translation of Theodore's
commentary on St. Paul's Epistles, after citing the Latin text as qui manifestatus
est in came, adds ' Both our MSS. read qui, here and [15 lines] below and use the
masculine consistently throughout the context. . . . Thus the present transla-
tion goes to confirm the inference already drawn from the Greek fragment of
Theodore, de Incam. xiii (Migne, P. G. 66, 987), that he read &s icpavipiiBrj'

394 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

direct, are cited in critical editions of the N. T. in suppoi't
of a relative ; add to which that deos is not quoted by Fathers
(e. g. Cyprian, p. 35 ; Bentleii Critica Sacra, p. 67) in many
places where it might fairly be looked for ; though this argu-
ment must not be pushed too far. The idle tale, propagated
by Liberatus the Deacon of Carthage, and from him repeated by
HincnJar and Victor, that Macedonius Patriarch of Constan-
tinople (a. d. 506) was expelled by the Emperor Anastasius for
corrupting O or OC into 0C, although lightly credited by
Dr. TregeUes (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 229) and even
by Dr. Hort (Notes, p. 133), is sufficiently refuted by Bp. Pearson
(On the Creed, Art. ii. p. 128, 3rd edition).

On a review of the whole mass of external proof, bearing in
mind too that OC (from which o of D* is an evident corruption)
is grammatically much the harder reading after y.v(TTripwv
(Canon I), and that it might easily pass into ©C, we must consider
it probable (indeed, if we were sure of the testimony of the first-
rate uncials, we might regard it as certain) that the second of
our rules of Comparative Criticism must here be applied, and
6e6s of the more recent many yield place to os of the ancient
few ^. Yet even then the force of the Patristic testimony remains
untouched. Were we to concede to Dr. Hort's unproved hypo-
thesis that Didymus, de Trinitate, abounds in what he calls
Syrian readings, and that they are not rare with Gregory
Nyssen (Notes, p. 133), the clear references of Ignatius and

(vol. ii. p. 135 n.) : pertinently observing that if Theodore used Ss, he was in
harmony with the Syriac versions.

' The Quarterly Reviewer (Oct. 1881, p. 365), in his trenchant style, goes a good
way beyond this : '"Os is in truth so grossly improbable — rather, so impossible —
a reading, that under any circumstances we must have anxiously inquired
whether no escape from it was discoverable : whether there exists no other way
of explaining how so patent an absurdity as this may have arisen ? . . . We
shall be landed in a bathos indeed if we allow gross improbability to become a con-
straining motive with us in revising the sacred Text.'

2 ' Conspectum lectionis hujus loci optime dedit in sermone vernaculo William
H. Ward, V. D. M. in Bibliotheca Sacra Americana, anni 1865,' TregeUes N. T.
ad loc. For a copy of this work I am indebted to the kindness of A. W. Tyler of
New York. Mr. Ward wonders that neither TregeUes nor I have noticed
a certain pinhole in Cod. A, which was pointed out to Sir P. Madden by J. Scott
Porter, made by some person at the extremity of the sagitta of the € on the
opposite page, and falling exactly on the supposed transverse line of the 0.
I cannot perceive the pinhole, but the vellum is fast crumbling away from the
effects of time, certainly through no lack of care on the part of those who keep
the manuscript.

ST. PAUL. I TIM. III. l6; VI. 7. 395

Hippolytus are not thus to be disposed of. I dare not pronounce
6e6s a coiTuption.

This decision of Dr. Scrivener would probably have been
considerably strengthened in favour of fleo'y, if the above passage
had been written after, instead of before, the composition and
appearance of Dean Burgon's elaborate and patient examination
of all the evidence, which occupies seventy-seven pages in his
' Revision Revised ' (pp. 424-501). Dean Burgon shows at length
that after about 1770 the passage in A became so worn that it
has been since that time increasingly difficult to see it ; he casts
much doubt upon the witness of C for 6'?, which Mr. Hoskier
(Cod. 604, Appendix J), after a long examination of the MS., not
only confirms, but actually removes in the opposite direction by
claiming C as a witness for deos ; he maintains with reason that
the transverse line in F and G is the sign of contraction ; he
exhibits the consentient testimony of the cursives; he claims
upon the testimony of the scholar who was editing the Harkleian
that version, as also the Georgian and Slavonic ; and he adds to
the Fathers enumerated above, besides doubtful testimonies,
Gregory of Nazianzus, Cyril of Alexandria, Severus of Antioch,
Diodorus of Tarsus, Euthalius, Macedonius, Epiphanius of Catana,
Theodorus Studita, Euthymius, some scholia, the author of Uepl
Oiias crapKua-eas, and an anonymous author, — making some fifty
testimonies in all.

42. I Tim, vi. 7. By omitting brjkov of the Received text,
Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, produce
a Greek sentence as inconsequential as the most thorough votaries
of the ' harder reading ' can wish for : ' For we brought nothing into
the world, because neither can we carry anything out.' Dr. Hort
sees, of course, that St. Paul could not reason in this fashion, and
says that ' The text [i. e. his text, without bfjX.ov} is manifestly
the parent of all the other readings, which are futile attempts to
smooth away its difficulty. A primitive corruption must lurk
somewhere,' — and then ventures on the awkward suggestion that
OTI arose from the transcriptional repetition of the last syllable
of KO(Tixov (ON being read as OTI), a guess which we observe that
Dr. Westcott does not care to vouch for (Notes, p. 134). But
why create a difficulty at all ? Cod. B, which ends in Heb. ix. 14,
is now lost to us, and of the rest Irikov is omitted in N*AFG and

396 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

its Latin version g with copies of the Vulgate referred to by
Lachmann, the Bohairic (koi for on), Sahidic ; the Armenian and
both Ethiopic varying with the Bohairic. Instead of bfjXov D*,
m, fuld., Cyprian and the Gothic have aXrjdis, and the printed
Vulgate with its codices (even /) and Ambrosiaster haud dubium,
which will suit 6^X01; well enough, as will )oi.Z»5 (et notum est)
of the Syriac versions. For StjXov itself stand J^**D** (^fiiat E)
KLP, all the cursives save one, and of the Fathers Basil, Macarius,
Chrysostom, Euthalius, Theodoretj and John Damascene, evidence
which we should have liked to see a little stronger,

43. Philem. 12. For ov avfTieixxj/a' a-v he airov, Tovrecm to, e/na
crirXdyxva, irpoa-Xa^ov of the Received text, the critics, Lachmann,
Tischendorf, Tregelles (but not his margin), Bp. Lightfoot, West-
COtt and Hort read ov avfireix^a a-oi, airov, roureo-ri to. e/xo a-irXdyxya,
omitting irpoa-XajSov, which they judge to have been interpolated
from ver. 17. Tregelles and Bp. Lightfoot, moreover, put a full
stop after a-oi, so that airov is regarded as an ' accusative sus-
pended ; the sentence changes its form and loses itself in a number
of dependent clauses ; and the main point is not resumed till ver.
17 -npoa-ka^ov airov as e/xe, the grammar having been meanwhile
dislocated.' So Lightfoot, who vindicates the emphatic place
he has assigned to airov by the not very close parallels John ix,
21, 23 ; Eph. i. 22. Manuscripts, of course, will not help us
much in punctuation, butCodd. N*A, 17 are very good witnesses
for croL in the room of a-v 8e' and for the omission of irpocrXalBov,
a simple, although somewhat rude, construction well worthy of
attention. For o-oi, with or without a-v be following, we have
the additional support of C*DE, d e and g against its own Greek,
the Clementine Vulgate and such Vulgate codices as dernid.
harl.^**, the Peshitto Syriac, Bohairic, Armenian, Ethiopic, &c.
For the omission of ■npoa-Xa^ov, which is of course the chief
variation, besides t^*A, 17 are cited F and G in the Greek but
not in their Latin versions, 37 and others setting it before
airov. It is found in all the rest, D**E**KLP, all other cur-
sives, and (as might have been anticipated) the versions, as well
Latin as Syriac, Bohairic (which reads as Cod. 37), Gothic, and
Ethiopic : g, the Armenian and Theodoret put it after airov.

CATH. EPISTLES. JAMES IV. 4 ; 5; I PET. I. 23. 397

Fourth Series. Catholic Epistles.

44. James iv. 4. Motxot kuC should be omitted before i^oixaXibes
on the testimony of i^*AB, 13. The Peshitto, Bohairic, Latin,
Armenian, and both Ethiopic versions have ' adulterers ' {forni-
catoresff) only, but since no Greek copy thus reads, we must
suppose that their translators were startled by the bold imagery
so familiar to the Hebrew prophets (Isa. liv. 5 ; Jer. ii. 2 ; Ezek.
xvi. 32 are cited from a host of similar passages by Wordsworth)
and endeavoured to dilute it in this way. Tischendorf would
join fj,oi)(a\ib£s with 6aTraz/7j(7Tjre ver. 3, alleging the point or
stop placed after it in Cod. B : but. this point is not found in
Vercellone's edition, although he leaves a small space before
oiiK. The full form Moixot Kal /noixaAtSey of i^'^KLP, the later
Syriac, and all other known copies, is evidently a correction
of early scribes.

45. James iv. 5. The variation between xaruKto-er and /carto-
KTja-iv is plainly to be attributed to a mere itacism, whichsoever
is to be regarded as the true form. We find t in NAB, 101, 104
only, nor is it quite accurate to say with Tischendorf that colla-
tors are apt to overlook such points. In KLP, and apparently
in all other manuscripts of every class, jj is read, and so the
catenas, with Theophylact and CEcumenius, understand this
difficult passage. That all the versions (Latin, Syriac, Egyp-
tian, &c.) thus render seems decisive in favour of ?;. The
combination of i^AB, however strong, has repeatedly been seen
not to be irresistible ; and while it must be confessed that in
our existing Greek copies the interchange of t and jj (though
found in Cod. A) is not an itacism of the very oldest type (p. 10),
yet here the testimony of the versions refers it back to the
second century. Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott
and Hort, combine in reading KaTiomcrfv.

46. I Pet. i. 23. Here we have a remarkable example to
illustrate what we saw in the cases of Rom. viii. 20 ; 2 Cor. iii. 3,
Phil. ii. 1, that the chief uncials sometimes conspire in readings
which are unquestionably false, and can hardly have arisen
independently of each other. For cnropaj (jydapTrjs Codd. i^AC
have (j)dopas <l)OapTrjs, the scribe's eye wandering in writing

398 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

(TTTopas to the beginning of the next word : Cod. B is free from
this vile corruption. When Mill records the variation for Cod. A,
he adds (as well he might), ' dormitante scriba : ' but that the
same gross error should be found in three out of the four oldest
codices, and in no other, is very suggestive, and not a little
perplexing to false theorists.

47. I Pet. iii. 15. Kvpiov 8e rbv 6eov ayida-are (v Tali Kapbiais
vix&v. For deov we find xpia-Tov (a change of considerable doc-
trinal importance) ^ in S^ABC, 7, 8 (Stephen's la), 13, 33 (margin),
69, 137, 182, 184 (but not 221 : see p. 310, note 2), Apost. I (Tv xv
fjpL&v) with its Arabic translation. Thus too i"ead both Syriac
versions, the Sahidic, Bohairic, Armenian (rdv avrov koI xpia-rov),
Erpenius' Arabic, the Vulgate, Clement of Alexandria, Fulgentius,
and Bede. Jerome has ' Jesum Christum : ' the Ethiopic and one
other (Auctor de promiss., fourth century) omit both words.
Against this very strong case we can set up for the common
text only the more recent uncials KLP (not more than seven
uncials contain this Epistle), the mass of later cursives (ten out
of Scrivener's twelve, also Wake 12, or Cod. 193), the Polyglott
Arabic, Slavonic, Theophylact, and QEcumenius, authorities of the
ninth century and downwards. It is a real pleasure to me in
this instance to express my cordial agreement with Tregelles
(and so read Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort), when
he says, ' Thus the reading xp'o"roV may be relied on confidently '
(An Account of the Printed Text, p. 285). I would further allege
this text as one out of many proofs that the great uncials seldom
or never conspire in exhibiting a really valuable departure from
the later codices, unless supported by some of the best of the
cursives themselves. See, however. Acts xiii. 32.

48. 3 Pet. ii. 13. The resemblance between the second epistle
of St. Peter and that of St. Jude is too close to be unobserved by
the most careless reader, and the supposition that the elder

^ ' As the Apostle here applies to Christ language which in the Old Testament
is made use of with reference to Jehovah (see Isa. viii. 13), he clearly suggests
the supreme godhead of our Redeemer,' as Dr. Roberts puts the matter (Words
of the New Testament, p. 170). Not, of course, that our critical judgement
should be swayed one way or the other by individual prepossessions ; but that
those who in the course of these researches have sacrificed to truth much that
they have hitherto held dear, need not suppress their satisfaction when truth
is gain.

CATH. EPISTLES. I PET. III. 15 ; 2 PET. II. I3. 399

Apostle's letter was in Jude's hands when he wrote his own is
that which best meets the circumstances of the case. The o-niXoi
of the present verse, for example, looks like the origin of o-jriAc{8e?
in Jude 12, where the latter word is employed in a signification
almost unprecedented in classical Greek, though the Orphic
poems have been cited for its bearing the sense of ' spots,' which
all the ancient versions rightly agree with our Authorized Bible
in attributing to it. Bearing in mind the same verse of St. Jude,
it seems plain that aTrdrais of the Received text cannot be
accepted as true, as well because it affords so poor a meaning
in connexion with evTpv(j>oivTes and crvvev<Dxovij.evoi, as because the
later writer must have seen ayAirais in his model, when he
paraphrased it by oE fv rais ayairais Vfx&v a-irikahis avvwiayovfxivoi.
For this change of two letters we have the support of Cod. A
(as corrected by the first hand) and B alone of the manuscripts,
but of the versions, the Latin Speculum m which in these later
epistles is strangely loose, yet cannot be misunderstood in the
present place, the Vulgate, the Sahidic version, the Ethiopic,
the Syriac printed with the Peshitto ^, and the margin of the
Harkleian version. Add to these Ephraem and the Latin author
of the tract ' de singularitate clericorum,' both of the fourth
century. The little group of cursives 27, 29, and the second
hand of 66 read ayvoiais ; but airciratj, nescio quo sensu ^, still

' This translation of 2 Peter, -j, 3 John, and Jude, printed by Pocooke from
Bodl. Orient. 119, well deserves careful study, being totally different in style
and character both from the Peshitto and th^ Harkleian, somewhat free and
periphrastic, yet, in our paucity of good authorities just here, of great interest
and full of valuable readings. Thus, in this very verse it reads dStKov/ievoi
( ' being wronged as the hire of their wrong-doing ') with N*BP and the Arme-
nian, difficult as it may seem to receive that word as genuine : in ver. 17 it
omits fls rhv aXwva with KB and some other versions : in ch. iii. 10 it sides with
the Sahidic alone in receiving oix fbpf0ria(Tai (apparently correctly) instead of
fipeBriireTat of NBKP, of the excellent cursives 27, 29, 66 semndd manu, of the
Armenian and Harkleian margin, where the Received text follows the obvious
KaraKayaeTai of AL and the rest, and C hits upon d<pavta0^<TovTai in pure despair.

' Bp. Chr. Wordsworth speaks as though there were a parotunnasia, n play
on the words ir/avq and aniTrj, comparing (after Windischmann) 2 Tliess. ii. 10.
* The false teachers called their meetings d7airai, love feasts, but they were mere
dTT&Tai, deceits. Their table was a snare ' (Ps. Ixix. 22). This view might be tenable
if St. Peter, with whom the paronomasia must have taken its rise, were not the
earlier writer of the two, as the Bishop of Lincoln believes he was, as firmly as
we do. Perhaps Dr. Westcott's notion that 2 Peter is a translation, not an
original, at least in ch. ii, will beat account for the textual variations between
it and St. Jude.

400 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

cleaves to the text of Tischendorf and of Westcott and Hort, and
to the margin of Tregelles, who in the text prefers aydiiais with
Lachmann and Westcott and Hort's margin. Codd. i^A (in its
original form) CKLP, all other cursives, the catenas (Cod. 36,
&c.), the Bohairic, Armenian, and Harkleian versions also have
dirdrais, and so Theophylact and CEcumenius, but hardly Jerome
as cited by Tischendorf.

49. I John ii. 23. The English reader will have pbserved
that the latter clause of this verse, ' but he that acJcnowledgeth
the Son hath the Father also,' is printed in italics in our
Authorized version, this being the only instance in the New
Testament wherein variety of reading is thus denoted by the
translators, who derived both the words and this method of
indicating their doubtful authenticity from the ' Great Bible '
of 1539 ^. The corresponding Greek 6 ojxoXoy&v tov vlbv xal
Tov -nafipa ex.il (which appears to have been lost out of some
copies by Homoeoteleuton), was first inserted in Beza's Greek
Testament in 1582 ^, it is approved by all modern editors
(Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott
and Hort), and, though still absent from the textus receptus, is
unquestionably genuine. This is just such a point as versions
are best capable of attesting. The ' Great Bible ' had no doubt
taken the clause from the Latin Vulgate, in whose printed
editions and chief manuscripts it is found (e. g. in am. fuld.
demid. tol. harl.), as also in both Syriac, both Egyptian (the
Sahidic not for certain), the Armenian, Ethiopic, and Erpenius'
(not the Polyglott) Arabic version. Of manuscripts the great
uncials J^ABC (with P) contain the clause, the later KL omit it.
Of the cursives only two of Scrivener's (182, 225) have it, and
another (183) secundd nianw: from twelve or more of them it is
absent, as also from seven of Matthaei's : but of the other cursives
it is present in at least thirty, whereof 3, 5, 13, 66** (viarg.), 68,
69, 98 are valuable. It is also acknowledged by Clement, Origen
(thrice), Eusebius, both Cyrils, Theophylact, and the Western
Fathers. The younger Cyril, possibly Euthalius, and one or

• See the Cambridge Paragraph Bible, Introduction, pp. xxxv, xxxvii.

^ ' Restitui in Grecis hoc membrum ex quatuor manuscr. codicum, veteris
Latini et Syri interpretis auetoritate. sic etiara assueto Johanne istis oppoai-
tionibus contrariorum uti quam saepissimfe.' Beza, N. T., 1582.

CATH. EPISTLES. I JOHN II. 23; V. 7, 8. 4OI

two others have ojnoXoyeT for the final ex«'- ^^^ Old Latin m,
Cyprian, and Hilary repeat rbv vlbv Kai before rdv Ttaripa exet.
The critical skill of Beza must not be estimated very highly, yet
in this instance he might well have been imitated by th^ Elzevir
editors.

50. I John v. 7, 8. "On rpels ela-iv ot iJiapTvpovvres [ev t<3
ovpava, 6 IlaTTjp, o Aoyos, koX to "kyiov Ylveup.a' koI ovtoi ol rpeii li/
ei<n. /cat rpets el<nv oi ixaprupovvTes Iv rrj y^], rb Tsveuy.a, /cat rb vbtop,
/cat Tb atjxa' /cat ot rpeis els to ev elaiv.

The authenticity of the words within brackets will, perhaps,
no longer be maintained by any one whose judgement ought to
have weight ; but this result has been arrived at after a long and
memorable controversy, which helped to keep alive, especially
in England, some interest in Biblical studies, and led to investi-
gations into collateral points of the highest importance, such as
the sources of the Received text, the manuscripts employed by
R. Stephen, the origin and value of the Velesian readings, and
other points. A critical ri&wmi of the whole discussion might
be profitably undertaken by some competent scholar ; we can at
present touch only upon the chief heads of this great debate ^-

The two verses appear in the early editions, with the follow-
ing notable variations from the common text, C standing for the
Complutensian, Er. for one or more of Erasmus' five editions.
Ver. 7. — ev rS ovpavZ usque ad tjj yfj ver. 8, Er. 1, 2.-6 prim, et

' Home (Introduction, vol. ii. pt. ii. ch. iii. sect. 4), and after his example
Tregelles (Home, iv. pp. 384-8), give a curious list of more than fifty volumes,
pamphlets, or critical notices on this question. The following are the most
worthy of perusal : Letters to Edward Gibbon, Esq., by G. Travis, Archdeacon
of Chester, 1785, 2nd edit. ; Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis, &c., by Richard
Porson, 1790 ; Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis, &c., by Herbert Marsh [after-
wards Bp. of Peterborough], 1795 ; A Vindication of the Literary Character of
Professor Porson, by Crito Cantabrigiensis [Thomas Turton, afterwards Bp. of
Ely], 1827 ; Two Letters on some parts of the Controversy concerning i John
V. 7, by Nicolas Wiseman, 1835, for which see Index. For Dr. Adam Clarke's
'Observations,' &c., 1805, see Evan. 61. Add F. A. Knittel on i John v. 7.
Professor Ezra Abbot's edition of ' Orme's Memoir of the Controversy on
I John V. 7,' New York, 1866, has not fallen in my way. As elaborate works, on
the verses are 'A new plea for the authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly
Witnesses, or Person's Letters to Travis eclectieally examined,' Cambridge, 1867,
being the performance of a literary veteran, the late Rev. Charles Forster, whose
argiunents in vindication of the Pauline origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
published in 1838, modem Biblical writers have found it easier to pass by than
to refute ; and ' The Three Witnesses, the disputed text in St. John, considera-
tions new and old,' by the Eev. H. T. Armfield, Bagster, 1883.

VOL. II. D d ,

")

402 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

secund. Er. 3. [non C. Er. 4, 5]. + Kat {post iraTrip) C — ro Er. 3.
■nvevixa Hyiov Er. 3, 4, 5. —ovtoi C. + et9 to {ante ev) C. Ver. 8, sttI.
TJJ9 yijs C. — ro ter Er. 3, 4, 5 [^a5e?i]5 C. Er. 1, 3]. — kol ot rpus ad
fin. vers. C. They are found, including the clause from ev raJ
ovpav£ to ev rrj yfj in no more than three Greek manuscripts, and
those of very late date, one of them (Cod. Ravianus, Evan. 110)
feeing a mere worthless copy from printed books ; and in the
margin of a fourth, in a hand as late as the sixteenth centuiy.
The real witnesses are the Codex Montfortianus, Evan. 61,
Act. 34, whose history was described above, p. 187 ^ ; Cod. Vat.-
Ottob. 298 (Act. 162), and, for the margin, a Naples manuscript
(Act. 8g lar 173, q. v.). On comparing these slight and scanty
authorities with the Received text we find that they present the
following variations : ver. 7. aiid roC ovpavov {pro kv ru ovpav^)
162. —6 prim, et secund. 34, 162. —to 34, 162. irva &yiov 34, 162.
-oSroi 162. + et'j t6 {ante Iv) 162. Ver. 8. elcrl, 73 marg. M ttjs
yfjs 162. — TO ter 34. —/cat {post Trva) 34, 162. —koI 01 Tpels ad fin.
vers. 34, 162, fin. da-i 173. No printed edition, therefore, is
found to agree with either 34 or 162 (173, whose margin is so
very recent, only differs from the common text by dropping
V ^^eXKva-TiKov), though on the whole 163 best suits the Com-
plutensian : but the omission of the article in ver. 7, while it
stands in ver. 8 in 163, proves that the disputed clause was
interpolated (probably from its parallel Latin) by one who was
very ill acquainted with Greek.

The controverted words are not met with in any of the extant
uncials (^^ABKLP) or in any cursives besides those named
above ^ : the cursives that omit them were found by the careful
calculation of the Rev. A. W. Grafton, Dean Alford's secretary

* That the Codex Montfortianus was influenced by the Vulgate is probably
true, though it is a little hasty to infer the fact at once from a single instance,
namely, the substitution of xp^'t^s after that version and Uscan's Armenian for
the second irvevim in verse 6 : ' quae lectio Latina Graece in codicem 84 Dublinen-
sem ilium Montfortianum recepta luculenter testatur yersionem vulgatam ad
cum conficiendum valuisse' (Tischendorf ad loc).

^ It is really surprising how loosely persons who cannot help being scholars,
at least in some degree, will talk about codices containing this clause. Dr.
Edward Tatham, Rector of Lincoln College, Oxford (1792-1834), writing in 1827.
speaks of a manuscript in his College Library which exhibited it, but is now
missing, as having been once seen by him and Dr. Parsons, Bishop of Peter-
borough (Crito Cantabrigiensis, p. 334, note). Yet there can be no question that
he meant Act. 83, which does not give the verse, but has long been known to
have some connexion with the Codex Montfortianus, which does (see Act. 38).

CATH. EPISTLES. I JOHN V. 7, 8. 403

(N. T. ad. loc), to amount to 188 in all (to which we may now
add Codd. 190, 193, 219-221), besides some sixty Lectionaries.
The aspect of things is not materially altered when we consult
the versions. The disputed clause is not in any manuscript of
the Peshitto, nor in the best editions (e. g. Lee's) : the Harkleian,
Sahidic, Bohairic, Ethiopic, . Arabic do not contain it in any
shape : scarcely any Armenian codex exhibits it, and only a few
recent Slavonic copies, the margin of a Moscow edition of
1663 being the first to represent it. The Latin versions,
therefore, alone lend it any support, and even these are
much divided. The chief and oldest authority in its favour is
Wiseman's Speculum m, and r of the earlier translation ; it is
found in the printed Latin Vulgate, and in perhaps forty-nine
out of every fifty of its manuscripts, but not in the best, such as
am. fuld. harl.^ ; nor in Alcuin's reputed copies at Rome (primd
manu) and London (Brit. Mus. Add. 10,546), nor in the book
of Armagh and full fifty others. In one of the most ancient
which contain it, cav., ver. 8 precedes ver. 7 (as appears also in
m. tol. demid. and a codex at Wolfenbiittel, Wizanburg. 99
[viii] cited by Lachmann), while in the margin is written ' audiat
hoc Arius et ceteri,' as if its authenticity was unquestioned ^. In
general there is very considerable variety of reading (always
a suspicious circumstance, as has been already explained), and
often the doubtful words stand only in the margin: the last
clause of ver. 8 (et hi tres unuvi sunt), especially, is frequently
left out when the ' Heavenly Witnesses ' are retained. It is to
defend this omission by the opinion of Thomas Aquinas, not to
account for the reception of the doubtful words, that the
Complutensian editors wrote a note, the longest and indeed
almost the only one in their New Testament. We conclude,
therefore, that the passage from ev t(3 ovpavQ to ev rfj yfi had no
place in ancient Greek manuscripts, but came into some of the
Latin at least as early as the sixth century.

^ Of the two Spanish MSS. one leon.' contains the passage only in the margin, the
other lean} adds at the end of ver. 8, in xpo ihu. Canon Westcott cites a manuscript
in the British Museum (Add. 11,862), of the ninth century, to the same effect,
observing that, like m and cav., it contains the Epistle to the Laodiceans. This
MS. runs ' quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant sps et aqua et sanguis, et tres
irnum sunt. Sicut in caelo tres sunt pater verbum et ^s et tres unum sunt.'
Westcott's manuscript is, in fact, vim., and had already been used by Person
(Letters, &c., p. 148).

D d a

^/%/e

-f'Hiel

404 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

The Patristic testimony in its favour, though quite insufficient
to establish the genuineness of the clause, is entitled to more
consideration. Of the Greek Fathers it has been said that no
one has cited it, even when it might be supposed to be most
required by his argument, or though he quotes consecutively the
verses going immediately before and after it ^ : [but a jjassage
occurs in the Greek Synopsis of Holy Scripture of uncertain
date (fourth or fifth century), which appears to refer to it, and

, another from the Disputation with Arius (Ps.-Athanasius)]. The
same must be said of the great Latins, Hilary, Lucifer, Ambrose,
Jerome ^, and Augustine, with others of less note. On the other
hand the African writers, Vigilius of Thapsus, at the end of the
fifth century, and Fulgentius of Ruspe (fl. 508) in two places,
expressly appeal to the ' three Heavenly Witnesses ' as a genuine
portion of St. John's Epistle ; nor is there much reason to doubt
the testimony of Victor Vitensis, who records that the passage
was insisted on in a confession of faith drawn up by Eugenius
Bishop of Carthage and 460 bishops in 484, and presented to
the Arian Hunneiic, king of the Vandals [or of Cassiodorus, an

y Italian, in the sixth century]. From that period the clause became
well known in other regions of the West, and was in time

) generally accepted throughout the Latin Church.

But a stand has been made by the maintainers of this passage
on the evidence of two African Fathers of a very different stamp
from those hitherto named, Tertullian and Cyprian. If it could
be proved that these writers cited or alluded to the passage, it
would result^-aoi by any means that it is authentic — but that
like Acts viii. 37 and a few other like interpolations, it was
known and received in some places, as early as the second or
third century. Now as regards the language of Tertullian

' Mr. Forster (uU supra, pp. 200-209) believed that he had discovered Greek
authority of the fourth century for this passage, in an isolated Homily by an
uuknov?n author, in the Benedictine edition of Chrysostom (Tom. xii. pp. 416-
21), whose date Montfaucon easily fixes by internal evidence at A. n. 381 . As this
discoveiy, if real, is of the utmost importance in the controversy, it seems only
right to subjoin the words alleged by this learned divine, leaving them to make
their own way with the reader : ( 1) cfs /ce'«Xi)Tai i Uarrjp xal 6 Tios Kal rb Hvevfui
rh " k'^iov : (2) Sef 7a/) ttj dTTOCToAi/c^ Xop^'"? 'ra/jax<w/)^o'at t-^v 'Ayiav TpiaZa, ^v 6 Xlar^p
KarayyiKKfL. Tpias 'AiroffT(5Aaji', fxciprvs ttjs ovpaviov TptaSos.

' The 'Prologus Galeatus in vii Epistolas Canonicas,' in which the author
complains of the omission of ver. 7, ' ab infidelibus translatoribus,' is certainly
not Jerome's, and begins to appear in codices of about the ninth century.

CATH. EPISTLES. I JOHN V. 7, 8. 405

(which will be found in Tischendorf s and the other critical
editions of the N. T. ; advers. Prax. 25 ; de Pudic. 21), it must
be admitted that Bp. Kaye's view is the most reasonable, that
' far from containing an allusion to 1 John v. 7, it furnishes most
decisive proof that he knew nothing of the verse ' (Writings of
TertuUian, p. 550, second edition) ; but I cannot thus dispose of
his junior Cyprian (d. 258). One must say with Tischendorf
(who, however, manages to explain away his testimony)
' gravissimus est Cyprianus de eccles. wnitate 5.' His words run,
*Dicit dominus, Ego et pater wnum sumus (John x. 30), et
iterum de Patre, et FUio, et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, Et tres
unum, sunt.' And yet further, in his Epistle to Jubaianus (73)
on heretical baptism : ' Si baptizari quis apud haereticos potuit,
utique et remissam peccatorum consequi potuit, — si peccatorum
remissam consecutus est, et sanctificatus est, et templum Dei
factus est, quaero cujus Dei? Si Creatoris^ non potuit, qui in
eum non credidit; si Christi, nee hujus fieri potuit templum, qui
negat Deum Christum ; si Spiritus Sancti, cum tres unum sunt,
quomodo Spiritus Sanctus placatus esse ei potest, qui aut Patris
aut Filii inimicus est 1 ' If these two passages be taken together
(the first is manifestly much the stronger ^), it is surely safer and
more candid to admit that Cyprian read ver. 7 in his copies, than
to resort to the explanation of Facundus [vi], that the holy
Bishop was merely putting on ver. 8 a spiritual meaning ;
although we must acknowledge that it was in this way ver. 7
obtained a place, first in the margin, then in the text of the
Latin copies, and though we have clear examples of the like
mystical interpretation in Eucherius (fl. 440) and Augustine
(contra Maximin. 22), who only knew of ver. 8.

Stunica, the chief Complutensian editor, by declaring, in con-
troversy with Erasmus, with reference to this very passage,
' Sciendum est, Graecorum codices esse corruptos, nostroa
[i. e. Latinos] vero ipsam veritatem continere,' virtually admits
that ver. 7 was translated in that edition from the Latin, not
derived from Greek sources. The versions (for such we must
call them) in Codd. 34, 162 had no doubt the same origin, but

' The writer of a manuscript note in the British Museum copy of Travis'
'letters to Gibbon,' 1785, p. 49, very well observes on the second citation from
Cyprian : ' That three are one might be taken from the eighth verse, as that was
certainly understood of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, especiatty when Baptism, was
the suiject in hand ' [Matt, xxviii. 19].

4o6 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

were somewhat worse rendered: the margin of 173 seems to be
taken from a printed book. Erasmus, after excluding the
passage from his first two editions, inserted it in his third under
circumstances we have before mentioned ; and notwithstanding
the discrepancy of reading in ver. 8, there can be little or no
doubt of the identity of his 'Codex Britannicus' with Mont-
fort's ^ We have detailed the steps by which the text was
brought into its present shape, wherein it long remained,
unchallenged by all save a few such bold spirits as Bentley,
defended even by Mill, implicitly trusted in by those who had
no knowledge of Biblical criticism. It was questioned in fair
argument by Wetstein, assailed by Gibbon in 1781 with his
usual weapons, sarcasm and insinuation (Decline and Fall,
chap, xxxvii). Archdeacon Travis, who came to the rescue,
a person ' of some talent and attainments ' (Crito Cantab., p. 335,
note), burdened as he was with a weak cause and undue confi-
dence in its goodness, would have been at any rate — im/par
congressus Achilli — no match at all for the exact learning, the
acumen, the wit, the overbearing scorn of Porson^. The

^ It will be seen upon examination of our collations on p. 402 that the points
of difference between Codex Montfortianus {Si) and Erasmus' printed text are
two, viz. that 34 omits koi after nvfvfia in ver. 8, and with the Complutensian
leaves out its last clause altogether ; while, on the other hand, Erasmus and
Cod. 34 agree against the Complutensian in their barbarous neglect of the Greek
article in both verses. As regards the omission in Cod. 34 of the last clause of
ver. 8 («al oi rpcfs cis to ev flaiv), it is obvious to conjecture that the person,
whosoever he was, that sent the transcript of the passage to Erasmus, who
never saw the MS. for himself, might have broken off after copying the disputed
words, and neglected to note down the further variation that immediately
followed them. After the foregoing explanation we must leave the matter as it
stands, for there is no known mode of accounting for the discrepancy, whereof
Mr. Forster makes the veiy utmost in the following note, which, as a specimen
of his book, is annexed entire : ' Bishop Marsh labours hard to identify the
Codex Britannicus used by Erasmus, with the Codex Montfortianus. Erasmus's
own description of the Codex Britannicus completely nullifies the attempt :
" Postremo : Quod Britannicum etiam in terrae testimonio addebat, Kal oi rpeis
eis T& tlv €lai, quod non addebatur hie duntaxat in editione Hispaniensi." Now
as this clause is also omitted in the Montfort Codex, it cannot possibly be t&e
same with the Codex Britannicus. In this as yet undiscovered MS., therefore,
we have a second and independent Gr. MS. witness to the seventh verse. The
zeal of the adversaries to evade this fact only betrays their sense of its impor-
tance ' (p. 126). Alas ! Hi moius animorum.

'■' I side with Person against Travis on every important point at issue between
them, and yet I must say that if the former lost a legacy (as has been reported)
by publishing his ' Letters,' he was entitled to but slender sympathy. The pre*
judices of good men (especially when a passage is concerned which they have

CATH. EPISTLES. I JOHN V. 7, 8; 18. 407,

'Letters' of that prince of scholars, and the contemporaneous
researches of Herbert Marsh, have completely decided the con-
test. Bp. Burgess alone, while yet among us [d. 1837], and after
him Mr. Charles Forster [d. 1871]j clung obstinately to a few
scattered outposts after the main field of battle had been lost
beyond recovery^.

On the whole, therefore, we need not hesitate to declare our
conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John :
that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa
from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and
orthodox gloss on ver. 8 : that from the Latin they crept into
two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed
Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim. We
will close this slight review with the terse and measured
judgement of Griesbach on the subject: 'Si tarn pauci, dubii,
suspecti, recentes testes, et argumenta tam levia, sufiicerent ad
demonstrandam lectionis cujusdam yi/rjcrioTTjra, licet obstent tam
multa tamque gravia, et testimonia et argumenta : nullum pror-
sus superesset in re critica veri falsique criterium, et textus Novi
Testamenti universus plane incertug esset atque dubius ' (N. T.,
ad locum, vol. ii. p. 709).

51. I John v. 18. In this verse, according to the Eeceived
text, we have the perfect yeyevvr]iJ.hos of continued effects and
the aorist yevvrjOeCs of completed action used for the same person,
although elsewhere in the same Epistle the man begotten of God
is invariably yeyevvrjiifvos (eh. ii. 29 ; iii. 9 bis ; iv. 7 ; v. 1, 4).

long held to he a genuine portion of Scripture, clearly teaching pure and right
doctrine) should be dealt with gently : not that the truth should be dissembled
or withheld, but when told it ought to be in a spirit of tenderness and love.
Now take one example out of fifty of the tone and temper of Person. The im-
mediate question was a very subordinate one in the controversy, namely, the
evidence borne by the Acts of the Lateran Council, a.d. 1215. ' Though this,'
rejoins Person, ' proves nothing in favour of the verse, it proves two other
points. That the clergy then exercised dominion over the rights of mankind,
and that able tithe-lawyers often make sorry critics. Which I desire seme certain
gentlemen of my acquaintance to lay wp in their hearts as a very seasonable innuendo '
(Letters, p. 361, quoted from ' A Tale of a Tub ' p. 151). As if it were a disgrace
for an Archdeacon to know a little about the laws which affect the clergy.

1 Gaussen (Theopneustia, pp. 115-7) has still spirit remaining to press the
masculine forms ol im/n-vpovvrts ver. 7 and ol rpiTs ver. 8 as making in favour of
the intervening clause : ' Kemove it, and the grammar becomes incoherent : '
a reason truly, but one not strong enough to carry his point.

4o8 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

Hence the special importance of the various reading alrov for
kavTov after TjjpeT, since, if this were to be accepted, 6 yevvrjdds
could be none other than the Only-begotten Son who keepeth
the human sons of God, agreeably to His own declaration in
John xvii. 12 1. In behalf of avTov we can allege only AB, 105
(a cursive collated by Matthaei), and the Vulgate (conservat eum),
the testimony of A, always so powerful when sanctioned by B,
being nothing weakened by the fact that it is corrected into
eavTov by the original [?] scribe ^, who in copying had faithfully
followed his exemplar, and on second thoughts supposed he had
gone wrong. All other authorities, including copies, versions,
and Fathers, ^ and the rest (C being lost here), have eawov, the
Peshitto very expressly [and Origen thrice, Didymus four times,
Ephraem Syrus and Severus twice each, besides Theophylact and
(Ecumenius ^]. We venture to commend this variation as one of
a class Dean Vaughan speaks of, which, seeming violently
improbable at first sight, grows upon the student as he becomes
familiar with it. It must be confessed, however, that St. Paul
makes but slight distinction between the two tenses in Gal. iv.
23, 29, and that we have no other example in Scripture or
ecclesiastical writers of 6 ytwrideis being used absolutely for the
Divine Son, though the contrast here suggested is somewhat
countenanced by that between d ayidCaiv and ol aytafojueyot in
Heb. ii. 11. [So that Dr. Scrivener's view demands considerable
sacrifice for its acceptance.]

* We are compelled to draw a sharp distinction between yfyevvripiivos and
ytwrjBtU in the same context, and, with all deference to the Quarterly Bmewer
(April, 1882, p. 366), we do not think his view of the matter more natural than
that given in the text : ' St. John,' he suggests, ' is distinguishing between the
mere recipient of the new birth {d yevvriBeh ck tov ®eov), — and the man who
retains the sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit which he received when he
became regenerate (6 yiyevvrmivos iie toS @iov).' [The distinction given between •
the perfect and aorist, as I have altered it in the text, is perfectly just, and
explains the passage. The effects of regeneration if continued are indefectible,
but the mere fact of regeneration entails constant watchfulness.]

^ So it certainly seems to me after careful inspection of Cod. A, although it
may be too bold to say, as some have, that there are in it no corrections by
later hands. Above in ver. 10 iv air^ is supported by ABKLP and a shower of
cursives in the room of iv iavT(f of X and the Received text, but here there is no
difference of sense between the two forms. Br. Hort (Introd., Notes, p. 144) has
an exhaustive and cautious note on the breathing oiavrov, avr^, &c., and ultimately
declines to exclude the aspirate from the N.T.

^ The Eevision Revised, pp. 247-8.

FIFTH SERIES. APOCALYPSE. 4O9

52. JuDE 5. Here we have a variation, vouched for by AB
united, which it is hard to think true, however interesting the
doctrinal inference would be. Instead of 6 Kvpios \aov e/c yrjs
klyxmrov <T<i<7as, the article is omitted by i^AB, and perhaps by
C*, so that it must at any rate resign its place ; while for KC of
N (apparently of C*) and the mass of copies, with the Harkleian,
we find IC in AB, 6, 7, 13, 29, 66 (secundd manu), the Vulgate,
Sahidic, Bohairic, and both Ethiopic versions. The Bodleian
Syriac has yet another variation, 6 ©eo's, in support of which we
have the important second hand of C, 5, 8, 68, tol. of the Vulgate,
the Armenian (with Ta in the margin), the Arabic of Erpenius,
Clement of Alexandria, and Lucifer. The Greek of Didymus has
Kcr Lcr, but his Latin translation tu, which Jerome also recognized,
although he wrongly supposed that Joshua was meant. While
we acknowledge that the Person who saved Israel out of Egypt
was indeed the Saviour of the world, we should rather expect
that He would be called the Christ (i Cor. x. 4) than Jesus.
There is a similar variation between x^i i^v, and dv in the parallel
passage i Cor. x. 9.

Lachmann alone reads 'Iijo-oCs here, though Tregelles gives it
a place in his margin. Westcott and Hort would be acting on
their general principle if they received it, but, while setting
Kvpios in the text and 'IryeroSs in the margin, they brand the
passage as corrupt, and would be inclined to believe that the
original words were 6 . . . a-da-as, without either of the nouns.
Dr. Hort (Notes, p. 106) points out how slight the change would
be from OTIO to OTIC (one I being dropped) in the simple
uncials of early times.

Fifth Series. Apocalypse.

53. ApoC. xiii. 10. Et ns alxP'O-^f^cr^av avvAyei, eh alxfiaXcocriav
virdyei.. This reading of the Eeceived text is perfectly clear ;
indeed, when compared with what is found in the best manu-
scripts, it is too simple to be true (Canon I, Chap. VIII). We read
in Codd. NBC : ei (G) ns ets aixi^a^axnav v-irayu [inrdyri B), the
reading also of those excellent cursives 28, 38, 79, 95, and of a
manuscript of Andreas : els is further omitted in 14 (sic), and in
92 its echo, in 32, 47, the Bohairic (?), Arabic (Polyglott), and
a Slavonic manuscript : and so TregeUes in 1873. The sense of
this reading, if admissible at all, is very harsh and elliptical :

410 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

that of the only remaining uncial A, though apparently unsup-
ported except by a Slavonic manuscript and the best copies of
the Vulgate (aTn. fuld. and another known to Lachmann)^ looks
more probable : et rts els aly^mXaia-Lav, eh alxfJ^a^f^ciav {ntdyei : ' if
any one is for captivity, into captivity he goeth ' (Tregelles,
Kelly: the latter compares Jer. xv. 2, LXX): the second els
alxiJ.a\(aaiav being omitted by Homoeoteleuton in the above-
mentioned codices. Tregelles (in 1844), Lachmann, Tischendorf,
Kelly, Westcott and Hort follow Cod. A, and it would seem
rightly.

All other variations were devised for the purpose of supplying
the ellipsis left in the uncials. For awayei of the common text
(now that it is known not to be found in C) no Greek authority
is expressly cited except Reuchlin's Cod. 1, after Andreas (whence
it came into the text of Erasmus) and the recent margin of 94.
The favourite form of the cursives is that printed in the Com-
plutensian Polyglott : etTislx^eiaix/^aA.a)<n'az',w<iyei, after P, 2,6, 8,
13, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 37, 40, 41, 42, 48, 49, 50, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94*,
96, 97, 98, perhaps some six others, a Slavonic manuscript,
Andreas in the edition of 1596. The Vulgate, the Latin version
printed with the Peshitto Syriac, and Primasius in sub-
stance, read 'Qui in captivitatem duxerit, in captivitatem
vadet,' but (as we stated above) aTti. fuld. (not dertiid.) and the
best codices omit ' duxerit ' and have ' vadit ' (Syr.*^?/'. . ."^oi),
which brings the clause into accordance with Cod. A. The
Greek corresponding with the printed Vulgate is el tls els (33
omits els) al\ii,aXoicriav (rm&yei 87), eh {es 87) al)(}i,a\ui<Tiav vitdyei,
33, 35, 87. Other modes of expression (e. g. et tls atx/^a^««i"'Tf'
eh alxiJ,a}i.u>a-[av virdyei, 7; et Tts aJx/xaAcortei, atx>iaXcorto-5?}(rerai, 18 ;
et Tis atx/ii«XwTTj(reT, eh alx- vir. 36, &c.) resemble those already
given, in their attempt to enlarge and soften what was originally
abrupt and perhaps obscure.

We submit the two following as a pair of readings which,
originating in the pure error of transcribers, have been adopted
by eminent critics in their unreasonable and almost unreasoning
admiration for Bengel's canon, ' Proclivi oration! praestat ardua.'

54. Apoc. XV. 6. In the transparently clear clause ^i/SeSujueVot
Xivov Kadapov Lachmann, Tregelles in his text, Westcott and Hortj

APOCALYPSE. XIII. lo ; XV. 6; XVIII. 3. 411

present the variation Xidov for klvov 'arrayed with stone,' i.e.
precious stone, for which Kadapov ' clean ' would be no appropriate
epithet. Dr. Hort (Notes, p. 139) justifies what he rightly calls
'the bold image expressed by this well-attested reading' by
Ezek. xxviii. 13 irdvTa XCOov x/oijo-tw evbebea-ai (or evhibva-ai), crapbiov
KoL TOTtdCLov k.tX, but that was said of a king of Tyre, not of the
angelic host. The manifestly false Aifloz; is only too 'well-
attested' for the reputation of its advocate, AC, 38 in the
margin, 48, 90, the best manuscripts of the Vulgate (am.fuld.
demid. tol. lips.*-^-^, &c.), though not the printed editions.
Andreas knew of the variation without adopting it: Haymo
and Bede also mention both readings. Cod. N reads Kadapov^
Xivovs with the Bohairic, and so helped to keep Tischendorf
right : Tregelles sets this form in his margin. For klvov or
Xivmv or X.Ti]v- we have all the other manuscripts and other
authorities, including BP, that excellent cursive Cod. 95,
Primasius. Between the two forms with v we should probably
choose kivovv of B, [7], 14, 18, 92, 97, as kivov seems to belong to
the raw material in a rough state. The later Syriac has jj'^S
(xtrSj;a), which admits of no ambiguity.

55. Apoc. xviii. 3. For Trenraxe of the Eeceived text, or
■niTooKav of Lachmann and Tischendorf, Tregelles (whose margin
has TTeTTTdKaa-Lv), Westcott and Hort in their text (not margin)
have -ninTiOKav. Dr. Hort has no note on this place, but treats
it in his index of ' Quotations from the Old Testament ' as
a reference to Isa. li. 17, 33 (17 Tuovcra to "norripiov rrjs irTcaa-eais)
and to Jer. xxv. 37 (Titere koI p,e6va-6r)Te . . . xat ■nea-da-de), with the
notion of stumbling through drink. What is required to com-
plete the parallel in some passage in the Septuagint wherein
iriuTcaKav stands alone, whether tov ohov be in the text or not,
and, in the absence of such parallel, TrenTTooKav must be regarded
as incredible on any evidence. Yet i!k-nTu>Kav or the virtually
identical TnnTcaKacnv is fotind in i^AC, in B, 7, 8, 14, 25, 27, 29, 91,
92, 94, 95 {■ni'nTuxn primd Tnanu), the Bohairic and Ethiopic.
The alternative reading ■ni-noiKav or -TrewmKatny (ireTrcoKe 96) occurs
in P, 1, 18, 31, 32, 36, 37, 38, 39, 47, 48, 49, 50, 79, 87, 90, 93,
97, 98, the Latin and later Syriac. Thus the very versions are
divided in a case where the omission of a single letter produces
so great a change in the sense.

412 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.

56. ApoC. sxi. 6. Kat H-ni fioi, Teyove. lya> eljXL rd A Koi rb 12.
Here the true reading Tiyovav ' They are done ' (adopted, with
or without d^ii after kyd>, by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles,
Kelly, Archdeacon Lee in the ' Speaker's Comnjentary,' Westcott
and Hoi-t) is preserved by Cod. A, whose excellency is very
conspicuous in the Apocalypse : its compeer C is defective here.
The very valuable Apoc. 38 confirms it {yeyovaa-iv), as did N", but
the whole word was afterwards erased : the interpreter of
Irenaeus renders facta sunt, and this is all the support A has.
The first hand of N with BP, 1, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, 35,
47, 48, 79, 87, 89, 91, 92 {Mat 14), 93, 96, 97, 98, the Armenian,
Origen {quod mireris), Andreas, Arethas, with the Compluten-
sian, read yiyova, most of them omitting either the eyat or the ky<l>
elixi which follows. Erasmus was too good a scholar to adopt
from Apoc. 1 a meaning for yiyvojmi which it cannot possibly
bear, and seems to have got his own reading teyove (though he
recognizes that of Apoc. 1 in his Annotations) from the Vulgate
factuffi est, which is confirmed by Primasius : it probably has no
Greek authority whatsoever. The Syriac printed with the
Peshitto (commonly assigned to the sixth century) appears, like
the hand which followed W, to omit yeyova, as do the Bohairio
and Ethiopic versions, with lux. nf li]ii Yiiljj ili Those which
read yeyova yet retain the following eya> (NBP, 7 and some other?)
obviously difi"er from the true reading yiyovav by the single
stroke which in uncial manuscripts was set over a letter to
represent nu, especially at the end of a line, and so avoid
the monstrous rendering necessarily implied in 1, 8, 93, 96, 97,
98, ' I have become alpha and omega, the first and the last.'
P accordingly puts the proper stop after yeyova.

God grant that if these studies shall have made any of us
better instructed in the letter of His Holy Word, we may find
grace to grow, in like measure, in that knowledge which tendeth
to salvation, through faith in His mercy by Christ Jesus.

APPENDIX A.

ON SYEIAO LECTIONAEIES.

A TEET interesting group of Syriac manuscripts is found in the collec-
tions of Syriac MS. Lectionaries which have descended to us. That the
number of them is large may be inferred from the fact that thirty-five
may be found in the British Museum alone (Catalogue, i. pp. 146-203).

Syriac Lectionaries are of two classes, (i) those according to the Greek
Use, and (ii) those according to the native Syriac Use. The former, or
Malhite Lectionaries, may be dismissed from the present enquiry. They
are only Greek works in a Syriac dress, and their value is historical rather
than critical '.

The true Syriac Lectionaries, whether Jacobite or Nestorian, follow as
to their main features the Greek Lectionaries which have been described
in our first volume, coming under two main classes. Evangelistaries and
Apostolos \ But they present one important contrast. In both families
of Syriac descent, the Ecclesiastical year begins with Advent, and not,
as in Greek Lectionaries, with Easter ; and in general the arrangement
is similar in both, so that the system must at least be of considerably
greater antiquity than the days of the schism. In some of the Jacobite
copies the text of the Harkleian revision has been substituted for the
ancient Peshitto. Some include Lessons from the Old Testament. Some
contain a Menology. In a few instances the Lessons for special festivals
form a separate volume.

The. majority of the Syriac MS. Lectionaries are comparatively late,
but others possess an antiquity which, in the case of some MSS., would
be considered remarkable. The British Museum copies, Add. 14,485
and 14,486, are each dated A. ge. 1135=a.d. 824. Others must be
referred to the same century. Add. 14,528, foil. 152-228 (an Index),
and the leaf in Add. 17,217, appear to be three centuries older. Another
sixth century MS., Add. 14,455 (the Four Gospels), contains many
Rubrics, a pr. m. in the text, besides those in the margins by later hands,
such as occur in MSS. of all ages. When to these facts we add the
consideration already mentioned, that the same system was in use in

' For a very full and clear account of a MS. of this class, the reader may con-
sult an article by Prof. Isaac H. Hall in the ' Journal of the American Oriental
Society,' vol. xi, No. 2, 1885. ,

^ It is not meant that these terms occur as titles. Apostolos (^..i. \ ».) as applied
to a book means the fourteen Epp. of St. Paul. Evangeliom, in the sense of Svan-
gelistary in a title, is quoted in ' Thesaurus Syriacus.'

But many liturgical terms were borrowed from the Greeks, especially by the
Maronites. For a succinct account of Greek and Latin Service Books, see
Pelliccia's 'Polity' (tr. Bellett, 1883), pp. 183-8 : for the Syriac system, see
Etheridge's 'Syrian Churches,' pp. 112-6.

414 APPENDIX B.

both branches of the Syrian Church, we see the importance of the
testimony of works of this class. They are very ancient ecclesiastical
records from the unchangeable East. Like Greek Lectionaries, they are
difficult to use, because of their arrangement of Lessons in the succession
ordered by the calendar : they are of course public documents, and in
consequence possess an importance above that of copies which were in
many cases the property of private persons, and may have been care-
lessly and cheaply prepared. Yet it would not be right to claim for
copies of a version a position quite as important as that held by the
Greek service-books, since the evidence of versions, as well as of quota-
tions in ancient writers, is only subsidiary. Nevertheless, in the fact
that the number of ancient Greek copies of the New Testament is rela-
tively small as compared with the early copies of the Peshitto version,
we are warned not to underrate Syriac Lectionaries, though they are of
less value for the Syriac, on account of the large number of very ancient
and well-written copies which have come down to us, such as those which
have been enumerated in our account of the materials for ascertaining
the text of the Peshitto.

APPENDIX B.

ADDITIONAL BOHAIRIC MANUSCEIPTS IN EGYPT (1893).

Cairo 1 [1184] attributed and possible date, fol., chart., ff. 290, 27 x
1 8-6 (23), Kf^., Copt. Gr., Am., Eus., pict. Evann., Copt., restored under
patronage of Athanasius, Bp. of Abutij, 1794, whose statement gives
date 900 of the martyrs. Dedication to monastery of St. Antony in the
eastern desert ; now in the library of the Patriarch in Cairo, numbered
12 and 14.

Ancient writing begins St. Matt. v. 25,

,, continues to St. Luke x. 2.

„ begins St. Luke x. 27,

„ continues to St. Luke xxii. 52,

„ begins St. Luke xxii. 66,

„ continues to St. Luke xxiv. 53.

„ begins St. John i. 31,

„ continues to St. John xix. 24.

Cairo 2 [1291], fol., chart., ff. 409, 26-9 X 18 (24, 25), Kf<^., Copt. Gr.,
Am., Eus., pict. (pictures of SS. Mark, Luke, and John). Evann. Copt.
Arab. Written by Deacon Barsuma, mended by Michael of Akhmlm,
monk of monastery of Siryani (Nitrian), under patronage of Cyril, 112th
Patriarch, 1878. Dedication to monastery of St. Barsuma, called Al
Shahran, 1329 ; now in the library of the Patriarch in Cairo, numbered

APPENDIX B. 415

Cairo 3 [xviii], fol., chart., ff. 342, 22-8x13 (29), Carp, and Eus. t.
at end of St. Mark, proll., kckJ). t, kicJ)., Copt. Gr., Am., Eus., jpiot. Evann.
Copt. Arab. Written by Michael Pilatos, wlio gives Ms name in the
duplicate book at Alexandria, and who wrote the Epistles and Acts
below in 1714. In the library of the Patriarch in Cairo. Text same
as Curzon 126.

Cairo 4 [1327], fol., chart., ff. 395, 27-5 X 17-8 (27), «^., Copt., Am.,
Eus., pict. Evann. Copt. Written by Thomas. Dedication to the
Church of St. Mercurius in old Cairo, where it now rests. Text of
St. Matt, is same as Brit. Mus. 3381.

Cairo 5 [1257], fol., chart., ff. 382, 26-4x19 (25), prol. St. Luke,
Capp. Copt. Am., Eus., pict., mut. Evann. Copt. Arab. Mut. St. Matt.
i — iv. 5, St. Mark i. 1-7, St. John i. 1-21 ; a few leaves restored.
Written by monk and priest Gabriel, who wrote in the house of Ibn
'Ass41 ; now in the Church of Al Moallaqah in old Cairo. Text similar
to manuscript of Gottingen.

Cairo 6 [1272], fol., chart., ff. 328, 24-9 x 17 and 25-7 x 18. Epilogue
to St. Matt. Kf^., Copt., Am., Eus.,piict., mut. Evann. Copt. St. Matt,
by more recent writer. SS. Mark, Luke, and John written by original
scribe, Simon Ibn Abu Nasr. Text of St. Matt, similar to Bodl. vii. In
the Patriarchal Library in Cairo.

Cairo 7 [xiv], 4to, St. Luke, restored under Bp. Athanasius of Abutij.
Text unimportant.

Besides several which are too late to have any critical importance.

Apocaltpsb.

1. [xix], folio.

Alexandeia 1 [xviii], fol., paper, duplicate of Cairo 3, by same writer.
Evann.

2. [xix], SS. Matt, and Mark.

3. [1861], St. John, Copt.

Date ai Mohaeeaq, nr. Manfalut on the Nile (station and telegraph
Nasali Ganub).

1. [1345], fol., chart., 22-5 x 14-2 (27), Carp, at end. Mut., but fairly
perfect, ^ici., and richly glossed. Text unimportant. Evann. Copt. Arab.

St. Paul, Cath., Acts.

1. [xii ?], probably of same date as Evann., Cairo 1, fol., chart., ff. 432,
25-6 X 18-2 (24), xe*., Copt. Gr. Thess., Heb., Tim., pict., Copt. : restored
Eom. and i Cor. i— xvi. 12, copious glosses in Arabic.

2. [xiv], fol., chart., 26 x 18-5 (25), t(e<p., Copt. Gr., /jic«. Philemon,
Hebr., Copt.

INDEX I.

TEXTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ILLTJSTKATED IN THIS TREATISE.

(Where the page is given alone, the reference is to the first volume.
n indicates note.)

St. Matthew.

i- i8 11. 321-3

It. 18 12

V. II II. 298

22. ..8; 11.255, 281

vi. I 13

8 II. 302

13 9; II- 279.

323-5

22 II. 303

vii. 2 13

14 16

28 13

viii. s 12

28 ; 17

ix. Tj 12

29 13

36 13

X. 23 9

xi. 16 II

19 II- 325-6

xiii. 15 II

40 13

xiv. 22 12

XV. 5 II, 14

8 13

xvi. 2,3 II. 326-7

21 II. 302

xvii. 20 II. 255 «

xix. 17 17; II. 281,

327-9

XX. 28 8; II. 330-1

xxi. 23 14

28 ...31; II. 331-6

xxii. 37 13

xxiii. 14-16 9

35 17

xxiv. 15 12

36 II. 269 «

XXV. 16 13

VOL. 11.

PAG^

xxvi. 39 16

xxvii. 4 13

9 17

28 ...II. 234, 302

35 12

49 II- 303

60 16

xxviii. 19 II. 303

St. Makk.
i. 2 17

21 11.315

ii. 17 12

27 II. 299

iii- 3 II

i4> 16 II- 303

iv. 19 II

V. 14 10

40 II. 318

vi. 2 II. 303

22 II. 303

vii. 2 13, 14

19. ..11; II. 336-7
ix. T II. 303

X. 30 II

xiii. 14 12

32 17

33 11-303

xiv. 4 II. 318

35 16

XV. 28 12

xvi. 9-20 ...7; II. 269,

337-44

St. Luke.

ii. 14 II- 344-9

15 14

22 17

iv. 18 13

E e

PAGE

iv. 44 11.304

V. 32 12,

38 12

vi. I 17

4 8

48 II- 304

vii. 31 12

viii. 40 II. 304

ix. 49 10

X. I II. 304

22 ; 12

30 14

41, 42... IL 349-50

xi. 4 II. 279-81

36 9

xii. 54 15

xiv. 6 IL 305

XV. 21 II. 30^

xvi. 12 II ; II. 305

20 10

xvii. 36 9

xviii. 39 9

xxi. 24 ...II. 306, 319

xxii. 37 12

43,44-.-9;II-269.

49 II- 319

xxiii. 32 II. .^06

34 11-356-8

xxiv. 3,6, 9, 12, 36, 40,
42,51. ..IL299n

St. John.
i. i8...i7;n. 358-60
28 17

44 12

ii. 3 II. 306

iii. 13 II. 360-1

iv. I II. 3°6

4i8

PAGE

■^- 3.4 9. 19; II-

361-3-

35 10

Tii. 8 ...17; II. 363-4

39 11.306

£3 — viii. II ... vii,
19; II. 364-8
viii. 44 n. 318

ix. 4 11.307

X. 22 II. 307

xili. 25, 26 19

x™i. 6 II- 307

xix. 6-35 12

14 17

Acts.

iii. 6 II

iv. 25 II. 307

T. 2 II. 318

vii. 37 13

46 11.308

viii. 7 13

37... 8; 11.368-70
ix. 5, 6 (xxvi. 14, 15)
...12

12 9

X. 19 II. 308

xi. 19-27; xin.i...3i2

20 II. 370-1

xii. 25 II. 308

xiii. 18 II. 371-2

32 II. 372-3

33 13

xiv. 8 14

24 13

XV. 17, 18 II. 299

34 II- 373-4

xvi. 3 14

7 17; 11-374

xvii. 28 II ; II. 309

xviii. 26; xix. 4, 15, 8,

34 14

XX. 4,15 19

10 II. 309'

24 II. 299

28...17; 11. 374-7

30 lI-3°9

xxiv. 6-8 19

XXV. 13 II. 309

xxvii. I II. 318

5 11.298 m

16 II. 377

37 II. 378-9

xxviii. 13 11.309

INDEX I.

xxviii. 16 II. 298 n

KOMAKS.
V. I ...17; II. 379-81

22 II. 310

viii. 20 II. 319

24 II. 311 »

xii. II 15

XV. 31 11. 310

1 Corinthians.

vii. 29 118 re

xi. 24 II. 381-2

29 8

xii. 20 14

xiii. 3 II. 382-4

5 II. 310

XV. 49 17

51. ..17; II. 384-6

2 COBINTHIANS.

iii. 10 10

iv. 12 14

viii. 4 13

xii. I II

xiii. 2 13

3 II

Galatians.

iii- 1 9; II- 311

V- 7 9

Ephesians.
V. 14 II. 386-7

Philippians.

i. 30 II

ii- I II. 387-9

COLOSSIANS.

iii. 6 II. 311 n

iv. 15 II. 310

1 Thessalonians.

ii. 7 II. 389-90

ig 12

iii. 13 12

V. 4 II. 310

2 Thessalonians.

i. 8, 12 12

1 Timothy.

PASS

ii. 6 17

iii. 16. ..is; II. 390-5
vi. 7 ...13; II. 395-6

2 Timothy.

iv. 5 12

15 13

Philemon.

12 (17). .,13; 11.396

Heebews.

"- 7 13

vi. 16 14

vii. I II. 310

xii. 20 13

James.

i. 17 II. 31Q

iv. 4 II- 397

5 11.397

I Peter.

i- 3,12 II

23 II. 397-8

li- 3 II

21 II

iii. I II

18 .11

20 10

21 II

iv. 5 II. 311

V. 10 II

13 11.398-400

I John.
ii. 23 ...g; II. 400-1

iii. 21 11.311 n

V. 7, 8. ..8; II. 401-7

18 II.407-S

JUDB.

4 17

5 11.409

Apocalypse.

ii. 20 14

iii. 16 9

xiii. 10 II. 409-10

XV. 6 II. 410-1

xvi. 7 17

10 10

xviii. 3 II. 411

xxi. 6 II. 412

INDEX II.

or SUBJECTS.

(N.B. — For Greek manuscripts of the N. T. consult Vol. I. Index I. For separate
Pathers, see Vol. II. pp. 172-4, and for present owners of MSS., Vol. I.
Index I. n indicates note.)

K, see Sinaitic.

Abbot, Ezra, II. 236 », 343 « i, 360 ».
Abbott, T. K., 154-5, 166; II. 46, 50.
Abbott's group, see Ferrar.
Abbreviations in manuscripts, &c., 49-

51, 92, 144, &c.
Accents employed in manuscripts, &c.,

45-8, 100.
Accretions, II. 249, 291, 362, 369, 374.
Acts and Cath. Epist. (Act., Cath.),

63-5, 78.
Acus employed by scribes, 27, 129.
Adamantius, see Origen.
Adler, J. G-. C, II. 30, 222, &c. &c.
African form of Old Latin version, see

Versions.
Alcuin's Latin manuscripts, II. 59.
Aldus, N.T., II. 187-8.
Alexander II of Russia, 32, 91.
Alexandrian MS. (A), 97-105; history,

97-98 ; description, 98-101 ; age, 103 ;

written by one hand or more, loi ;

collations and editions, 103-4 ; charac-
ter, 104-105, B,ii& passim.
Alexandrianisms, 141 ; II. 224-6, 312,

316-8.
Alford, B. H., 147.
Alford, H., Dean, I2«, 114 and «; II.

252 n 4, 346, 351, and frequently.
dX\d, when to be edited, 14*.
Alphabet, Gothic, invented, II. 146.
Alphabet, so Armenian, II. 150.
Alter, P. K., N.T. and manuscripts, II.

220, &c.
Amanuensis, influence of, II. 319 n 1.
Am^lineau, M., II. 133-4.
Amelli, Guar., II. 48.
Amiatinus, Cod. Lat. (am.), II. 71.
Aiumonian Oasis and dialect, II. loi.
Ammonian sections, 59-63 ; without

Eusebian Canons, 62, 68, 189, and

passim.
'AvaYviixTcis, 189, 64.
'Ava.yvixTyi.a.Ta, 189, 68-9, 75 " I, I39>

&c. &c.
*AvaoTa(rijia cia-yveXta, 85, Evst. 30,

240 ; Mark vi. 9-20 read in them, II.

341-
Ancient authorities, II. 276-8 ; often

divided, ihid. ; see also 240, 359, 300-

I.
Andreas, Abp., paragraphs, chapters, and

summaries of the Apocalypse, 64, 67,

Evann. 1 8, &c.
Andreas, priest, Evann. 15, 232, &c.
Angelus Vergecius, 44 » i .
Anglo-Saxon version, see Versions.
Antiochene, (supposed) revision of text,

IL 287-8.
Antony, St., II. 98-9.
Aphraates, II. 20-21, &o.
Apocalypse (Apoc), 78, character of

text, 14 ; wanting in Peshitto, 8 ;

in Bohairic, 11. 123; in Sahidic, II.

13?-
Apocrypha, II. 177-
Apocryphal insertions, 8 ; II. 271 n.

See Western Interpolations.
'Airoo-ToXoeva-yY^^iO', 74-
Apostolos or Praxapostolos (Apost.), 74-

6.
Apostrophus, 49, 138, 175 ; II. 27o».
Aquila, II. 272.
Arabic versions, 11. 161-4; in other

MSS., Evan. 211, 240)1, Act. 96,

Evst. 6, 328 ; II. 113-23.
Aramaean, II. j, 28, 312-3, 320 re.
Arethas, Abp., on Apocalypse, 67.
Argenteus, Cod. Gothicus, II. 146.
Aristophanes of Byzantium, 46.

E e 2

420

INDEX II.

'Apx'f) and reXos, 'j6.

Armagh, book of {arm.), II. 74-

Armenian version, see Versions.

Armfield, H. T., II. 401 n.

Article, Coptic, II. 1 24.

Article, Greek, fluctuating use of, 15.

Ascetic temper alleged to be traced in

manuscripts, II. 252 m4, 255, 349.
Asiatic family of text, II. 212.
Asper, value of, 239 n.
Assemani, J. S., II. 27, 34.
Assemani, S.S., II. 30.
Assembly of Divines, 103 n i.
Asterisks, 133 ; II. 37, 354, 361, 365.
Atlianasius, Bp. of Kos, II. 96, 100, 102.
Athos, Mount, Evann. 905, &o., passim.
Augustine, Bp., II. 42-3, 4n, and

passim.
Aureus, Cod., II. 51.
Autographs of the N.T., 2; II. 257-9,

262-3.
Available evidence to be used in full,

II. 275, &o., 300-1.

B and T confounded, 43 n 2.

Baber, H. H., 104.

Babington, Churchill, papyri, 22.

Balance (nice) of evidence, II. 371-2.

Barbarous readings inadmissible, II.

319ml.
Barnabas, St., Epistle of, 96; his

apocryphal diroSTjiiia, Evan. 239.
Barrett, John, 153-4.
Barsalibi, Dion., Bp., II. 18, 27 n, 31.
Bashmuric dialect, II. 96, 100; really

Middle Egyptian or Middle Coptic,

103. See Versions.
Batiflfol, P., 166 ; II. 51.
Bebb, Rev. LI. J. M., II. 3 ml, 145, 158-

61, 168 n I.
Bede, the Venerable, II. 369.
Belsheim, J., Evann. 613-7; II. 46, 48,

61. 62-
Bengel, II. 210-13 ; his paragraphs

(■nipiKO-rrai), 211, I. 271 ; families, II.

2 1 1-2 ; character, 212; Canon, 247,

and passim.
Bensly, B. S., Prof., II. 46.
Bentley, Kiohard, II. 204-9 ! Ws career,

204-5; projected edition of N.T., 205-

6 ; his papers andMSS., 206-9 • causes

of failure, 209 ; I. 1 10, 285 ; II. 65-6,

89, 245 n T, and passim.
Bentley, Thomas, no, 177 ; II. 207.
Berger, M. Sam., II. 66 n, 46.
Bernard, Edward, II. 200.
Berriman, J., II. 392 n.
Bessarion, Jo., Cardinal, 105.
Beza, Theod., his N.T., II. 192-3.
Bezae, Cod. (D), 124-30; same as

Stephen's $', 1 24 » 3 ; history, 1 24-5 ;

collations and editions, 126-7, ^^3°!

Bianohini, Jos., see Index of Facsimiles,

Vol. I.
Bible, Bnglish, margin of Authorized,

II. 371-2.
Bible, Great, II. 400.
Bible, Hebrew, fcst printed, II. 175.
Bible, Iiatin, first printed, II. 61,

175-
Bilingual MSS., see Cod. Bezae (D),

Evan. A, Act. E, Paul. T>, Paul. F,

Paul. G.
Binding, manuscripts used for, 91, 151,

159. 171. 183.

Birch, Andr., II. 220-2 ; iio-iii, &c.

Birks, T. E.., Canon, II. 282 n 2.

Blakesley, J. W., Dean, II. 351, 352.

Bloomfield, S. T., see Index II, Vol. I.

Bobbio, II. 146.

Bodleian Euclid, 42 .

Boettioher, P. (Lagarde), II. 109,
28371.

Bdttiger, 180.

Bohairic or Memphitic dialect, see
Versions (Coptic).

Bosworth, Dr. J., Anglo-Saxon Gospels,
XL 165.

Bowyer, "W., II. 245 n.

Bradshaw, H., 151, 189 ».

Breathings in manuscripts, 45-8, 100,
&c.

Breves, see titAoi.

Bright, J. W., Dr., 145, 164-5.

Broadus, J. A., II. 342.

Brown, D., II. 329 «.

Bruce, Ja., the traveller, II. 129.

Brugsch, 91 »; II. 97.

Burgess, Bp., II. 407,

Burgon, J. "W., Dean, his enlargement
of the study, 78-9 ; his letters to the
Guardian, 189 »; II. 338; use of
quotations from the Fathers, II. 167-
71 ; his great book on ' The Revision
Revised,' 167; also I. 120 to 2, 240-1
(his enlargement of the list in ed. 3),
251. 252. 255, 256; II. 282 »I, 301,
327. 341. 343 « 2, 345, 357 n 2, 363 n i,
368 » 3, 395, and passim.

Buttmann, Phil., II. 231-3.

Byzantine revision of text(?), II. 224,
229.

Caesarea, library of, II. 266-9.

Calendar, Greek, 80-9.

Cambridge Texts, Greek Testament,
19.

Canonioi, M. L., library _of, 246.

Canons of Comparative Criticism,
see Comparative Criticism.

Canons of Internal Uvidenoe, see In-
ternal Evidence.

Capernaum, its orthography, II. 315.

Capitals, 29, 51-2, and passim, and

OF SUBJECTS.

421

Caro, Hugo de S., Cardinal, 69.

Carolinus, Cod. Gothicus, II. 146.

Carpianus, Epistle to, &o., 60-3, 189,
and passim.

Carshunio characters, II. 30.

Casley, II. 65, 89.

Catena, 67, and passim.

Ceriani, Ant., I. I20n3; II. 50, 52,
&c.

Chapters, see Sections.

Chapters, Latin or modern, 69-71, 68.

Charles the Great, Emperor, II. 59.

Christian VII of Denmark, II. 220.

Church, the, the Keeper of Holy Writ,
II. 252, 296™ I.

Church Lessons, see Evangelistaria,
Apostolos.

Cilicisms, II. 317.

Citation of O.T., marks of, 64 «, &c.

Classes, six, of manuscripts, 77-8.

Clement of Alexandria, II. 262-3.

Clement of Home, Epistles, 99.

Clement Till, his Vulgate, II. 64-5.

Cobet, C. G., II3»2 ; II. 253 », 263 »i.

Codex Britannicus, Evan. 61.

Codex Friderico-Augustanus, 31 &c.,
90.

Codices, 28.

Coislin, Bp., his Library, Evan. H.

Coislia, his Octateuch, Evan. E».

Colbert, Pentateuch, &o., LXX (Paris),
same MS. as Cod. Sarravianus, which
see.

Coleridge, S. T., II. 258 n 3.

Colinaeus, S., his N.T. ; II. 188.

Columns in manuscripts, 28, a,nd passim.

Comes, Latin Church Lessons, II. 341
J13.

Commentary (Ip/i^yeia), (a) of Andreas
or Arethas, 67, 64, (6) Chrysostom,
242, &c., (c) Theophylact, 242, &c.

Comparative Criticism, II. 274-301 ;
its nature, 274-5 i completeness of
comparison essential, 2 75-6 ; cannot be
coniined to a few authorities, 276-8 ;
even to the oldest, 278-81 ; B and N
not infallible, 281-4 ; Westoott and
Hort's theory unsound, 284-97, Ij^ing
on explanation (285-90), destitute of
historical foundation (290-2), of critical
groundwork (292-3), of Ante-Nioene
authority (293-5), of internal pro-
bability (295-6), and of confirmation
vphen applied to passages (302-11) ;
true view, 297-301.

Complete copies of N.T., 72.

Complutensian Polyglott, II. 176-
181 ; deviser of, 176 ; character, 177-
8; MSS. used for, 178-180; text, 180-
181, a,Tid passim.

Conflate readings (so-called), II. 292-3.

Confusion of certain vowels and diph-
thongs, 10.

Confusion of uncial letters, 10.
Conjectural emendation inadmissible,

IL 344-7.
Constantino, Emperor, 118 n 2,
Contents of MSS., 71-72.
Conybeare, F. C, II. 145, 148-54,

156-8.
Cook, F. C, Canon, II. 28391, 325 «,

356-

Coptic (or Egyptian) language, its dia-
lects and versions, II. 91-144. See
Versions.

Copying, mistakes in, to ; additions in,

13-
Corrector (Sio/jSoittjs), 54-5.
Correctoria, II. 60.
Correotorium, Bibl. Lat., Evan. 81.
Corruptions of text in second century,

II. 259-65.
Corssen, Dr., 182 ; II. 51, 66.
Cotton fragment of Genesis, 32-40.
Cotton paper (bombyoina), 23.
Couroelles, Stephen, II. 198.
Cowper, B. H., 104; II. 391.
Coxe, H. O., 240, 297 n, 32411, Ac.
Cozza-Iiuzi, Joseph, Ii6-ig.
Cramer, J. A., II. 128.
Cranbrook, Earl of, II. 171.
Crawford, Earl of, his Library, II. 114,

121, 132.
Critical editions, 196-243.
Critical revision a source of various

readings, 16-17.
Crito Cantabrigiensis (Turton,T.,Bp.),

II. 401 n, 403 n.
Crowding of letters, 41, 51, 132, &c.
Crum, "W. B., H. 143-4.
Cureton, W., Canon, 8. See Versions.
Curetonian, see Versions.
Cureton's Homer, 44.
Cursive letters, described, 29, 30 ; earliest

cursive biblical MS., 41 « i ; earlier

MSS. still, 42.
Cursive manuscripts, their critical value,

II. 277, 297-301.
Curzon, Hon. K. (Lord de la Zouche),

and his Parham MSS., 240, 252 ; II.

114-5; 119, 122.
CjrrU Xjucar, see Lucar.

Daraasus, Pope, II. 56-7.

Dated manuscripts, 41-2. See Indiction.

Davidson, S., II. 292.

Deane, Kev. H., II. 6, 29.

De Dieu, L., II. 10.

Delitzsoh, F., II. 180 n i, 184 » I.

Demotic writing, II. 92, 97.

Designed alterations alleged in text, 1 7 ;

II. 2.59. 327> 363-
Dialectic forms, II. 312-20 ; grounded
on tlie Hellenistic dialect, 312-3 ; effect
of Hebrew Aramaic, 313 ; v i^e\Kv-
aTiic6v, 314-5 ; harsher forms in older

422

INDEX II.

MSS., 3 1 5-6 ; variations in grammatical

forms, 316-8 ; other dialectic forma,

318-20 ; I. 14.
Dickinson, John, 126.
Dictation, 10; II. 319 n.
Dio Cassius, the Vatican MS., 28 n 2.
Diocletian's persecution, II. 266, I04»I.
Dionysius, Bp. of Corinth, II. 259.
Dioscorides, the Vienna MS., 46, 164.
Divisions of N.T., see Sections.
Diviaions,Slavonic,IT. 158. jVee Versions.
Dobbin, Orlando, 120, Evann. 58, 61.
Doctrinal corruption, 17; II. 327,

407.
Donaldson, J. 'W., II. 2 ion 3, 314,

315 »•
Dorisms in N.T., II. 310, 318.
^Duchesne, Prof., 166.

Ecclesiastical writers, see Fathers.
Sclogadion, 77 ; list throughout the

year, 77, 80-7. See Synazarion.
'Edinburgh Review' (Tregellesin), II.

2IO»I.

Egyptian versions of N.T., see Versions.

Bllicott, C. J., Bp., II. 253, 384, 392.

Ellis, A. A. (Bentleii Crit. Sacra), II.
206, 207, 209.

Elzevir editions of N.T., II. 193-5.

Embolismus, II. 325 » i.

Emendation and recension distinguish-
ed, II. 245-6.

Engelbreth,'W.F. (Bashmuric), II. 131.

Ephraem Syrus, II. 20-1.

Ephraemi, Cod. (C), 121-24; palim-
psest, 121 ; history, 121-2 ; described,
122-4.

Epiphanius, Bp., II. 270.

Erasmus, Desid., II. 182-7; first editions
of Gr. Test., 182—5; other editions,
185 ; their character, 185-7, *". Ac.

Erizzo, P. M., Count, II. 31.

Ernesti, J. A., II. 216.

Erpenius, T., Arabic version, II. 162-3.

Bstrangelo character, II. 9, 14, 37.

Ethiopic version, see Versions.

Euchology, 75, 80.

Euclid, dated manuscript of, in the
Bodleian, 42.

Eumenes, king of Pergamus, 24.

Eusebius, 120 n; II. 266-7, ^"^ i letter
to Carpiauus, 60-3, 189.

'Eusebian' canons, 59-63; 189, and
passim,

' Eusebian ' canons, tables of, omitted in
many MSS., 62.

Eustathius of Autioch, 53.

Euthalius, Bp., 63-4, 53, 190, and
passim. See Sections.

Evangelia (Evan.), 78.

Evangelistaria (Evst.), the term used
in modern Greek catjilogues; II, 74-

Fabiani, H., Canon, 118.
Facsimiles of MSS., 104.
Families of MSS., Bengel's theory, II.

2II-I2; Griesbach'a, 224-6; Hug's

theory of recensions, II. 270-2 ; Scholz'

theory, 229-30.
Fathers, value of citations from, II.

167-71 : drawbacks, 168 ; list of, with

dates, 171-4.
Fayoumio version, II. 140. See Versions.
Fell, John, Bp., II. 199-200, 106, 169.
Ferrar, W. H., the F. group, see

(Evann. 13, 69, 124, 346, 556, 561)

-1-92,25^,^24, }^fr it-f.jfU.

Field, Dr., II. 7 n i, 347 n i.

Fleck, F. P., 121.

Folio, see Form.

Forbes, G., 50.

Ford, Henry, II. 131.

Foreign matter in manuscripts, 66-7,

passim under MSS.
Form of manuscripts, 28.
Forster, C, 129 »; II. 401-7.
Frankish version, II. 165.
Friderico-Auguatanus, 90-1, 33-9.
Froben, J., II. 182-5.

Gabelentz, H. C. de, and J. Loebe, II.

147.
Gale, Th., Dean, 48.
Gebhart, Oscar von, 164.
Genevan N.T., 71.

Georgian version, II.156-8. See Versions.
Gildemeister, II. 162-4.
Giorgi, A. A., II. 128.
Glosses, marginal, &c., II. 249-50.
Gold, used in writing, 27.
Golden Evangelistarium, 88 n 2.
Gospels, divisions of, see Sections.
Gothic version, II. 145-8. See Versions.
Goulbum, Dean, 171.
Grammatical forms, peculiar, II. 312-

20, 181.
Greek era in dated manuscripts, 42 n 2.
Green, T. S., II. 249.
Gregory, Dr. Caspar Een^, 79, 241-2,

272-83. 30,^-5. 317-9. 325-6. 356-65.

373-6. 384-9. -^PP- -A- ; II. 320 », and

passim, especially under Cursive MSS.
Griesbach, J. J,, II. 222-226; 170,

196, 216, 249, 251; his N.T., 223;

theory of families and recensions, 224-

6 ; character, 226 ; 272 n, 285, 290.
Grimthorpe, Lord, II. 248 n 2.
Grouping of authorities, II. 297-300,

279-80.
Quidi, II. 154.

Gutbier, Giles, Peshitto N.T., II. 10.
Gwllliam, Rev. G. H., II. 6, 12, 13, 34,

36.
Gwynn, J., Dean, 94; II. 10.

OF SUBJECTS.

423

Hagen, H., II. 51.

Hall, Dr. Isaac H., II. 27 m, 175 n, 193 n,

196.
Hammond, C. E., 18 « I ; II. 379.
Hands of MSS. changed, 96, loini,

337-
Hansell, E. H., 170.
Harkel, Thomas of, II. 25.
Harley, E., Bad of Oxford, 175.
Harmonies of the Gospel History, 67 b 4,

190. See Eusebian Canons.
Harnack, A., 164.
Harris, J. Bendel, 130, 151, 203,

^.SS. Appendix D; II. 34, 51, 163, 172,

366 n 2, See.
Hartal, II. 54.

Headlam, Eer. A. C, II. 91-144.
Hearne, Th., 170.
Hebrew Bible first printed, II. 175.
Hebrew (or Jewish) Gospel, 161 ; II.

I6«2, 269ni.
Hebrews, Bp. of, place in N.T., 74, 57,

99.
Hellenistic dialect, II. 312-20.
Hentenius, John (Louvain Lat. Bible),

II. 62-4.
Hercnlanean papyri, 21, 22, 33, 42, 44,

47, 108.
Hermas, 66, 67.

Hesychius of Egypt, II. 268, 270-1.
Hieratic writing, II. 91-2.
Hieroglyphic writing, II. 91-2.
Hieronymus, see Jerome.
Homer and his manuscripts, 4, 44, 45,

5°, 145-
Homoeoteleaton, 9.
Home, T. H., Introduction and Tre-

gelles' edition, II. 485, and^ossim.
Hort, P. J. A., II. 242-3 ; I. 18 » 2 ;

II. 244, 313 n 2, 333 » I, 337 mi, and

Hort, "Westoott and, II. 284-97; their
views explained, 285-90 ; compared
with those of Griesbach, 290-1 ; desti-
tute of historical foundation, 291 ;
examination of the three reasons of the
two Revisers, 293-4 ; these views un-
sound, 296-7 ; 242-3, 273.

Hoskier, H. O., 191, 251.

Hug, J. L., 107, 1 1 1, 1 20 ; his system of
recensions, II. 229, 270-2.

Hutter, Blias, Peshitto N.T., II. 10.

Hyperides, papyrus fragments of, 22,
34-41, 45, &o.

Iberian version, II. 156-8. See Georgian.

Ignatius, St., 257.

Indiction, I. Append. ; 42 « 2, 156.

Ink, 26-7, black and coloured, ibid.

Insertion of glosses, 1 3.

Internal evidence, II. 244-56; not

solely conjectural, 244-7 > textual

canons, 247-56.

Interpolations, various readings arising

from, 7-9; II. 249.
Interpolations for liturgical use, 327.
Iota, ascript and subscript, 44-5.
Irenaeus, St., II. 261.
Irish monks at St. Gall, 158, 180.
Isaiah, Dublin MS., 154.
Itaoism, lo-ii, 17.
Itala, 44, 55-6 ; IT. 42.
Italics of English Bible, 9, 400.

Jablonsky, II. 100, 119.
Jackson, John, 126.
Jebb, B.. C, II. 209 n.
Jerome, II. 268-70 ; recklessness in
statement, 355. See Vulgate, and

Jerusalem, Convent of Cross at, 240.
Jerusalem, Palestinian or J, II. 30-4.

See Versions.
Jude, St., followed 2 Pet., II. 398-9.
Junius, Pr., II. 147.
'Itoa'vrqs, orthography of, II. 316.

KaC abridged, 15, 16 and n.
Karkaphensian, 35-6. See Versions.
Kaye, Bp., II. 258 m 3.
Kelly, "W., 7078 2, 343 n i.
Kennedy, B. H., Canon, II. 3oo».
KcfjxlXaui, see Sections.
Kipling, T., Dean, 126.
Kitchin, G. "W., Dean, 152.
Koriun, II. 148 n, &c.
Kuenen, A., see Cobet, C. G.
Kuster, Ii., 122 ; II. 203-4.

Iia Croze, II. 100, 119.

Iiachmann, C.,II. 231-5, 245, 285 ; his

system, 231-2 ; unsoundness of it,

232-4, 273, 276, &o. ; his character,

234-5 i ^7°j 25^> and passim.
Iiagarde, P., see Boettioher.
Lanfrano, Abp., II. 60.
Ijatinizing, 130, 182; II. 180, 215.
Iiaud, "W., Abp., 170.
Laurence, E., Abp., II. 226.
Leaning uncial letters, 41, 144, 151,

155, &c.
Lectionaries of N.T., 74-7 ; system,

age of, 75 and n 2, 190. See Evange-

listaria, Apostolos.
Lectionaries, Syriac, II. Append. A.
Lectionaries of Old Testament, 'j6,

329 », &c.
Lee, Edw., Abp., II. 186.
Lee, Sam., Peshitto, II. 11.
Le Long, J., II. 104, 191.
Lent, Lessons for, 84-5.
Leusden and Schaafs Peshitto N.T.,

II. II.
Lewis, Mrs., discovery of an old Syriac

MS., II. 14, 17,37-
Liddon, H. P, D.D., II. 252 n l.

424

INDEX II.

Iiightfoot, J. B., Bp., on the Coptic

Tersiona, II. 91-139, &c.
Xiine set over Proper Names, Evan. 530.
Xiinen Paper {charta), 23, 189.
Linwood, W., II. 245 n 2.
Liturgical notes,see ava-^v^aiuna^ Lect.,

a,pyi\ and t£\os, 189-90, &0.&C., II-I2.
Lloyd, C, Bp. (N.T., Oxon.), 60, 67-8.
AAyoi, 68.

Louvaiu Vulgate, see Hentenias.
Lucar, Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria,

and afterwards of Constantinople, 97-8.

Mabug, II. 25.

Maoe, W., his N.T., II. 210.

Madden, Sir F., 21, 44.

Magee, W., Abp., II. 251.

Maha^^, J. P., 166.

Mai, Angelo, Cardinal, iii n 2, 112-15.

Malan, S. C, D.D., 77 m 2 ; II. 3, 32 n 2,
i20« I, I46» 2, &;o.

Manuscripts —

(i) Greek. iSee Index I, Vol. I; con-
taining the whole Greek Testament,
72 and n i; containing the four
Gospels complete, 1 36.

(2) Syriac, II. 12-13, 29.

(3) Latin.

(a) Old Latin (a, 6, c, d, &c.),

' II- 45-.'54-

(6) Vulgate, II. 67-90 ; various
notations (Tischendorf, am.,
and,, bodl', cav., &c.), 89-90.

(4) Coptic.

(a) Bohairic, II. 110-23.
(6) Sahidic, II. 132-6.

(5) Gothic (Argenteus, Carolinus,
Ambrosiani), II. 146-7.

(6) Armenian, II. 153-4.
Marcion, heretic, II. 259-60.
Margoliouth, Prof. D. G., II. 145, 154-5,

161-4.

Marsh, Herbert, Bp., 127; II. 191,
401 n, 407.

Marshall, Th., II. 106, 147.

Martianay, X). J., II. 46, 47.

Martin, Abbe, 242, 269-72, 303, 317,
Append. A ; II. 28 n r.

MapTvpCai, II. 192, 194.

Martyrs, era of, 98, 104 n i.

Mary Deipara, St., convent of, 145.

Materials for writing, 22-6.

Matthaei, Ch. I"., II. 216-20; I. 75,
172 ; his accuracy, II. 216; his colla-
tions, 217-8; mode of controversy,
218-9.

MaxSatos, orthography of, II. 316.

Mazarin Bible, II. 61, 175.

McClellan, J. B., 347 » 2.

Memphitio version (see Bohairic),

Menology, 76-7 ; list of, throughout
the vear. 87-0.

MiohaeUs, J. D., II. 13, 180, 216, 321.

Mico, Abbate, iio-ii,

Middleton, T. I"., Bp., 15 ; II. 182 n 2,

321, 331 «.
Mill, Dr. J., II. 200-3; li'S career, 200-1;

character of his services, 201-2 ; his

MSS., 202-3 ; liis Prolegomena, 203.

See also I. 122 ; II. 106, 169, and

Miller, Edward, II. 3 » 2, 24 » 2, 256 n,

325 » 2.
Miller, Emmanuel, 222, 273, I. Index

II, &c.
Milligan, "Wm.., II. 346.
Mingarelli, J. A., II. 128, 129.
Moldenhawer, D. G., II. 221, 222, &c.
Monasteries, Egyptian, II. 99.
Montfaucou, Bernard de, 21, 134, and

passim.
Morning hymn, Greek, II. 345.
Moses of Chorene, II. 149, &c.
Monlton, W. E., II. 319-20.
Moveable type, supposed cases of, 140 ;

II. 146.
Mozarabio Church Lessons, II. 341 n 3.
Munter, M. E., II. 129.
Muralt, Edw. de, edition of B, no,

244.
Musical or vooal notes in red, 'passim

under Evst.

TS, abridged form of, 50.

V c(|)e\Kvo'TiK6v or attached, 139 ; II.

181, 185, 314-5, &o.
ITablous, copy of Samaritan Pentateuch

at, 28 » 2.
Ifazarenes, Gospel of, 161.
Ifazareth, its orthography, II. 315.
ITeubauer, Dr., II. 32b n.
Nicholson, E. B., 245, 341 ; II. 322 » 2,

327-
BTicoU, Prof, of Hebrew, Oxford, 98.
Ifitrian desert, manuscripts from, 145.
ITolan, Dr., II. 267.
BTorthumbria, MSS. written in, II. 59.
ItTotation of manuscripts of N.T., 77~8.

Obeli, II. 26 » I, 323, 365-6, &c.

Oblak, II. 159.

Oecumenii iiroOkaas to N.T., &c., 67,

also under the MSS. '
Old Latin Biblical Texts, II. 48, 49, 50.
Old Latin version, see Versions.
Omissions, 7, 15.
Order of books in N.T., 72-4 ; Western

order, 73 n 2, Evan. 461.
Order of words, variations in, 9.
Origen, fanciful biblical speculations,

II. 262-3, 266, 269-70, 271.
Origen, his Hexapla, 11. 266.
Orme'a memoir of i .Tohn v. "7. II.

OF SUBJECTS.

425

Orthodox readings, not improbable, II.

251-2.
Orthography of manuBoripts of N.T.,

II. 312-20.
Ostromlr Gospels, II. 159.

Palaeographical Society, I. App. B.
Palestinian, see Versions.
Palimpsest described, 25 ; double, 141.
Palmer, E., Arohdn., 119 ji; II. 208,

243-
Pamphilus, Martyr, and his library,

II. 266-7.
Paper, cotton and linen, 23.
Papyrus, 23-4; MSS. on, 33; of

Hyperides, 41, 44, 48. See Hercula-

nean Rolls.
Paradiplomatic evidence, II. 253-4.
Paragraph, 128. See Sections.
Parchment, 23-6 ; dyed purple, 26.
Paronomasia, II. 399 n 2.
Particles omitted or interchanged, 14.
Patriarchates, the five, 67, Evan. 211.
Pa\il, Acts of, 97.

Paiiline Epistles (Paul.), ancient divi-
sions of, 64—6, 78.
Penn, Granville, 15 «i.
Pens, different instruments used for, 27.
Perioopae of Church Lessons, II, 75.

See Bengel.
Pericope adplterae, 81 n, 99 n 2.
Persic versions of N. T., II. 165-6.

See Versions.
Peshitto, II. 6-14. See Versions.
Petrie, Dr. Flinders, II. 143.
Philodemus ircpl Kamwv, 30, 33, 44.
Philozenian Syriac, II. 25-9. See

Versions, Harkleian.
Philoxenus or Xenaias, Bp., II. 25.
PictTires in MSS., 190, and paasim.
Pierius, II. 269.
Pius IV, II. 63.
Plantin, Greek N.T., II. 181 ; Peshitto

N.T., II. 9.
Plato, dated manuscript of, in the

Bodleian, 42.
Pooook, Bd-w., II. 165.
Pocoek, Eev. Nicholas, 182.
Pococke, Blchard, II. 26.
Polyglott, Antwerp (Plantin), II. 9.
Polyglott, Bagster's, II. II.
Polyglott, Complutensian (see Complu-

tensian), II. 176-81.
Polyglott, London {see Walton), II.

163.
Polyglott, Paris, II. 10.
Porson, B., II. 406.
Porter, J. Scott, II. 31, 228.
Fraxapostolos, see Apostolos.
Printing, invention of, II. 61, 175.
IXpoYpd|ii|ji.aTa, Evan. 597.
Prologues, 67, 68, 190, and passim.
' Psalms of Solomon,' 99.

Psalters, Greek, first printed, II. 175.
Psalters, MS. on papyrus, 46.
Punchard, E. G., II. 248 n 2.
Punctuation, 48-9, and passim.
Pvirple and gold or silver manuscripts,

27.
Pusey, Philip E., II. 12, 18, 19.

Quarto, see Form.
Quaternion, see Form.
Quatremdre, see Coptic.
Quotations from Pathers, II. 167-74.

See Fathers.
Quotations from Old Test, in Hew,

12-13.

Eeoeived Text, II. 264; founded on
what editions, II. 195 » 3, 193 » I.

Becension, false, 16-17; recensions, sfee
Families.

Beed used for writing, 27.

Beiche, J. G., II. 283 n.

■P^(iaTtt or p-i\a-as, 65, 68-9, App. D.

Bettig, H. C. M., 157.

Beuchlin, J., 10 «.

Beuss, Ed., II. 175 », 181 n, &b.

Eevised Text, II. 243.

Eevisers, the two, II. 292-6.

Bhythm, cause of various readings, II.

264-
Eidley, Gloucester, II. 27.
Boberts, Alex., 18 bi; II. 244712,

248 »i, 320 n.
Boiled manuscripts, 28-9.
Eonsoh, H., II. 54.
Bosetta stone, 31, &c.
Eulotta, Abbate, no.

2, the weak, II. 315.

Sabatier, P., II. 42. See under Lat.

MSS.
SajSPaTOKvpiaKaC, 328, &c.
Sahak, St., 148, &c.
Sahidic or Thelsaic dialect and version,

II. 119-39. See Versions.
Sakkelion, A. I., 272.
Sanday, Dr., II. 48, 127, 293.
Sarravianus, Cod. LXX, 49 «, s i ; II.

378. Part of the Colbert Pentateuch.
Schaaf, Oh., and Iieusden, J., Peshitto

N.T., IL 181, 183.
Sehmeller, J. A., Frankish version, II.

165.
Scholz, J. M. A., 240 ; II. 226-30 ;

labours, 227 ; character, 228 ; theory of

families, 229-30, leai passim.
Schulz, D., II. 48, 228.
Sohwartze, M. G., Bohairic N.T., Sea.,

II. 101-3.
Scott, O. B., D.D., II. 198.
Scribes, chiefly clergy or monks, II.

252.
Scrivener, P. H. A., his Collations, see

426

INDEX 11.

Vol. I. Index II ; edition of D, 127,
&c. ; of Cod. Augiensis, 177-8; of
Kevised Gr. Text, II. 243 ; of ' Adver-
saria et Critiea Sacra,' I. App. I,

I. 252. See also II. 79, 195 n 3, 243,
and passim.

Sections, (i) in B, 56-7 ; (2) greater,
57-8; (3) 'Ammonian,' 69-63; (4)
Euthalian, 63-4 ; (5) other, 64-5.

Semicvirsive letters, Evan. M, 274.

Semler, J. S., II. 211, 215.

Signatures of sheets, 28, 164.

Silver, used in writing, 27.

Silvestre, M. J. B., Pal^ograpMe Uni-
verselle, 21, &c., App. C.

Simonides, Constantine, 94-7.

Sinaitio MS. (N), 90-7 ; discovery of,
90-1; description, 91-3; age, 94-5;
derived from a papyrus, 95 ; itnposture
of Simonides, 95-7 ; character of, 97 ;

II. 267-8.

Sionita, Gabriel, Peshitto N.T., &c.,

II. 10.
Sixtus V, Pope, his Latin Bible, II.

63-5-
Skeat, W. 'W., II. 148, 164.
Slavonic, II. 158-61. See Versions.
Slips of the pen, a source of various

readings, 16.
Smith, B. Payne, Dean, II. 354.
Society for Promoting Christian

Knowledge, II. 103.
Specimens of four Syiiac versions of

N.T., II. 38-40.
Specimens of the Coptic, II. 128, 139.

142, 144.
' Spectator,' No. 470, II. 345 n.
Spelling, variations in, 14.
Standish, II. 186.
Stephen, Henry, 70.
Stephen, Bobert, II. 188-92; I. 70-1,

124-6, 137 ; II. 61-2, 196.
Stephen, Bobert, editions, II. 188-9 i

MSS. used by him, 1. 124 m 3, 191, 192,

196, Act. 8, Act. 50, Apoc. 2.
Stichometry, 52-4, 65, 68-70, 137,

I. App. D, and passim.
Stilus, 27, 137.
StCxoi, see Stichometry.
Stops, their power varies with their

position, 48, 137.
Storr, G-. C, H. 163.
Streane, A. "W., II. 241.
Stunica, J., Lopez de, II. 184, 186,

405-
Style, change of, no decisive proof of

spuriousness, II. 342.
Subjunctive future, II. 384.
Subscriptions, 55, 65-6, 190, and

passim under MSS.
Suicer, J. C, 53 n i, 144.
Sulci or Sulca, 63.

Synaxorion, 77 and n i ; list of Lessons

throughout the year, 80-7.
Synonyms interchanged, 13.
Syriao Evangelistaries, II. 32, App. A.
Syriao language and dialects, II. 6-8,

312-3-
Syrian Christians, sects of, II. 6-33.
Syro-hexaplar version, II. 13 » i.

Tatham, Edw., II. 402 n 2.

Tatian's Diatessaron, 12, 57, 59, &c.

Tattam, H., Archd., II. no.

Taylor, Isaac, 18 k 2.

Tentative process commended, II.
264-5.

TertuUian, II. 257.

Textual Canons, II. 247-56.

Textual criticism and its results, 4-7 ;
IL 257-301.

Textus receptus, see Received Text.

Thebaic, see Sahidic.

Thecla, St., 101-2.

Theodora, or Theodosia, St., 87 and
n 2.

Theodulphus, Bp., II. 59.

Theophylaot, see Commentary.

Thompson, E. Maunde, 22, 102, 104,
147 «, App. C.

Thorpe, Benj., Anglo-Saxon Gospels,
IL 165.

Tisohendorf, II. 235-8 ; his great edi-
tions, 235-6; texts, 236-8; I. 115-7,
122, 155-6, 159-60, 163; IL 89, 163,
24S, 282; collations, gee Vol. I.
Index II, and passim.

Titles of the books, 65.

TCtXoi, 57-9, 68, 190, passim under
MSS.

Todd, H. J., Archd., Catalogue of
Lambeth MSS., 249.

Traditores, II. 266.

Transcription, see Copying.

Transposition of sentences, 12.

Transposition of words, &c., 9-10

Travis, G., Archd., II. 401 n, 406 and
n 2.

Tregelles, S. P., 18 « i, iti ; II. 238-
41 ; his books, 239 ; texts and colla-
tions, 240 ; his system, 240-1 ; life,
241; 170, 231-2, 246, 255, 273, 275,
328, and passim. See also for Colla-
tions, Vol. I. Index II.

Tremellius, Im., Peshitto N.T., II. 9.

Trent, Council of, II. 63.

TpvT&yiov, 103.

Trost, Martin, Peshitto N.T., II. 10.

Tubingen edition of John i-vi, II. 176.

Tuki, E., Bp., IL 128.

Two Eevisers, II. 292-6.

Tychsen, O. G., II. 221, 222.

Tyler, A. W., I L 383.

Tyndale, 'W., IL i86b i.

OF SUBJECTS.

427

TJlphilas or tJlfilas, Bp., II. 145.

TTnoial letters, described, 29-30 ; mis-
takes in, 10 ; how distinguished as to
age, 31-46; compressed uncials, 137;
mixed with cursives, 142 ni.

tTuoial MSS., list of, 90-188, 3; Evst.,
328.

'XiroSuup^crcis |ii.cpiKa( (subdivisions of
chapters), 64% 2.

TTsster, James, Abp., II. 10, 197-8.

Utrecht Psalter, the, 28 » 2.

Valla, Iiaurentias, 205.
Vansittart, A. A., 152, 278 n.
Various readings defined, 3 ; different

classes, 7-17'
Vatican MS. (B), 105-121, sections of,

56-7, 68 ; history, 105 ; description,

105-9 > collations and editions, 109-19 ;

age, 105, 118 n2 ; character, II. 268.
Vaughan, C. J., Dean, II. 29771 1.
Vellum, manufacture of, 22-5.
Veroellone, C, 56, 112, 113, 116-18.
Vermilion paint (jctvv&^apii), 61.
Verses, Greek or Latin in MSS., 192,

passim under MSS.
Verses, modem in N.T., 68, 70-1 .
Versions, 1-5 ; use and defects, II.

2-3 ; various early, 3-4.

1. Syriac :

(i) Peshitto, II. 6-14; dates prob-
ably from the second century, II.
7, 264; printed edd., II. 8-12;
new one by P. E. Pusey and
G. H. Gwilliam, Peshitto MSS.,
II. 12-13; why so called, II.

13-

(2) Curetonian, II. 14-24 ; first dis-
covery, II. 14 ; second, II. 14 ;
publication by Cureton, 1 1 ; com-
mon origin of Peshitto and Cureto-
nian, II. 16; Peshitto the older,
II. 17-24.

(3) Harkleian or Philoxenian, II.
25-9 ; made first by Xenaias, or
Philoxenus, 25 ; next, collated by
Thomas of Harkel, edd. of, 26-
8 ; character, 28 ; MSS. of, 29 ;
Mr. Deane's work, 29.

(4) Palestinian or Jerusalem, II.
30-4 ; fragments, esp. of an Evst.,
30 ; description, 30 ; Erizzi's edi-
tion, 31; menology, i^ ~ i<
Lagarde, Harris, and Gwilliam,

34-
(s) Karkaphensian or Massorah, II.
34-6 ; discovered by Wiseman,
34; description, 34-6; a Massorah,

36.

2. Latin, II. 41-90 :

(i) Old Latin, 41-56 ; many versions
(3n 2) (Jerome, Augustine), 41-2 ;
probably one, 42-3 — but cf. 3 n 2 ;

' Itala,' arose in' Africa, 43-4 ; age,
264; Old Latin MSS. of the
Gospels, 45-51 ; Act. and Oath.,
51-3; Paul., 53-4; Apoc, 54;
Latin Fathers, 54 ; African family,
55 ; European, 55 ; Italian, 55-6.
(2) Vulgate, II. 56-90 ; history, 56-
65 ; text often incorrect, 58-9 ;
revisions, 59 ; correctoria, 60-1 ;
printing, 63 ; authorized recension,
63-5 ; editions, 65-6 ; MSS., 66-
89; IBibles, 67-74; N®^ Testa-
ments, 74-5 ; Gospels, 75-85 ;
Acts, Epistles, Apoc, 85-9 ; nota-
tions, 89-90.

3. Egyptian or Coptic versions, gi-
145 ; history and description, 91-
106 ; sacred and demotic writing,
91-3; Coptic, 92-6; dialects, 96-
106; at least five instead of three,
103-6 :

(i) Bohairio (Coptic or Memphitic),
106-27 ; editions, 106-10; MSS.,
Gospels, 110-18, — Paul., Cath.,
and Act., 118-21, Apoc. 121-3;
all except Apoc. in the Canon ;
order of books, 124; character,
124-5; date, 125-7.

(2) Sahidic or Thebaic, 127-39;
editions, 127-32 ; MSS., 132-6 ;
order of books, 137-8 ; character,
138-9.

(3) Fayoumic or Bashmurio, 140-1.

(4) Middle Egyptian or Middle
Coptic, or Lower Sahidic, 141-3.

(5) Akhmimio, 143-4.

4. Other old versions, 145-66 :

(1) Gothic, history, 145 ; MSS., 146-
7 ; editions, 147-8.

(2) Armenian, history, 148-51 ; colla-
tion, 151-2 ; character of text,
152-3 ; MSS., 153-4.

(3) Ethiopic, date and MSS., 154-5 >
editions, 155.

(4) Georgian, history and MSS.,
156; editions, 157; character,
167-8.

(5) Slavonic, history and divisions,
158; MSS., 159-60; character,
160-1.

(6) Arabic, history and MSS., 161-
2 ; editions, 162-3 \ character,

163-4-

(7) Anglo-Saxon, history, MSS.,
and editions, 164-5.

(8) Prankish, 165.

(9) Persic, versions and MSS.,
165-6.

Vossius, Isaac, II. 146.

Vulgate version, II. 56-96. Sec Versions.

"Wake, "Wm., Abp., his MSS., 204 n,
246-8.

428

INDEX II.

■Walker, John, II. 206-9 > -f- ^4^ ^ '• •'■■'•

65, 89.
"Waller, Eev. Dr., II. 21 n 2.
"Walton, Brian, Bp., II. 10, 165 (Persic),

197-8. .
"Ward, "W. H., II. 394 » 2.
■Westoott, B. F., D.D., Bp., 59»2 ; II.

242, 258 » I, &o. See Hort. ,
"Western textj^l. 264, 138, 224-6, 229-

30, 231 n, 264-5, 272 n, 286-73;

interpolations, 130; II. 264, 330. See

Apocryphal insertions.
"Wetstein, J. J., II. 213-16; I. 78 m,

122, 209, 210, 247, and passim.
"Wheelooke, Abr., II. 165.
"White, E., 151.
"White, H. J., Eev., II. '41-90, 66, 69, 71,

80, 85.
"White, Joseph, II. 27.
"Widmanstadt, Albert, Peshitto N.T.,

II. 8-9.
"Wilkins, D., Coptic N. T., II. 106-7.
"Winer, G. B., II. 28451.
"Wiseman, M"., Card., 112 ; II. 34, 42,

406 n 2.

"Woide, C. G-., 103 ; II. 129-31, 215, &e.
"Woods, F. H., Rev., II. 21.
"Wordsworth, C, Eev., 69.
"Wordsworth, Chr., Bp., D.D., 17; II.

381-2, &o. &c.
"Wordsworth, J., Bp., D.D., 41-90, 66,

90.
"Wright, "W., Dr., II. 155.
"Writing, style of, 15 ; slips of the pen,

16.

Xenaias or Philoxenus, see Versions.
Ximenes, Fr. de Cisneros, Card., II.
176-81, 184.

7ear, Greek ecclesiastical, 80-9.
Young, Patrick, 103, 123.

Zacagni, Zi. A., no.

Zacynthius, Cod., II. 365 n 2.

Zahn, Dr., II. 21.

Zahn, J. C, Gothic N. T., II. 147.

Zoega, G., Cat. Codd. Copt., II. 131-2.

Zouche, de la. Lord, see Curzon.

Zurich Psalter, 16 ».

END OF VOL. II.